ABSTRACT
Background: Fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) have been proposed as an alternative to traditional metal alloys for the realization of frameworks in full-arch implant-supported prostheses. The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the deflection under load of seven prostheses endowed with frameworks made of different materials, including different types of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs). Methods: A master cast with four implant analogues in correspondence with the two lateral incisors and the two first molars was used to create full-arch fixed prostheses with the same shape and different materials. Prostheses were made of the following different materials (framework+veneering material): gold alloy+resin (Au+R), titanium+resin (Ti+R), FRC with multidirectional carbon fibers+resin (ICFRC+AR), FRC with unidirectional carbon fibers+composite (UCFRC+C), FRC with glass fibers+resin (GFRC+AR), FRC with glass fibers+composite (GFRC+C), and resin (R, fully acrylic prosthesis). Flexural tests were conducted using a Zwick/Roell Z 0.5 machine, and the deflection of the lower surface of the prosthesis was measured in order to obtain load/deflection graphs. Results: Greater rigidity and less deflection were recorded for UCFRC+C and GFRC+C, followed by Ti+R and Au+R. The greatest deformations were observed for resin alone, ICFRC+R, and GFRC+R. The results were slightly different in the incisal region, probably due to the greater amount of veneering material in this area. Conclusions: When used to realize full-arch frameworks, Au and Ti allow for predictable mechanical behavior with gradual deformations with increasing load. UCFRC also demonstrated good outcomes and less deflection than ICFRCs when loaded. The GFRC full-arch framework may be a valid alternative, although it showed greater deflections. Further studies are needed in order to evaluate how different prosthesis designs and material thicknesses might affect the outcomes.
ABSTRACT
The use of new prosthetic materials makes it necessary to establish adequate hygienic protocols. It was decided to make prosthetic crowns from four different materials: composite, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and zirconium, and to evaluate the effects on the surfaces of four different instruments through SEM and roughness analysis: manual steel curette, manual titanium curette, ultrasonic steel insert, and ultrasonic peek insert. Forty crowns were made, ten of each type of material. For each material, five crowns were manually instrumented with steel inserts (curette 11-12, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) and titanium (Wingrove 3-4, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) on the lingual and buccal surfaces, respectively, and the other five crowns were instrumented with an ultrasonic peek insert (ICS-IC1, Mectron, Carasco, Italy) on the buccal surface and steel (PS, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) on the lingual surface. At this point, surface roughness analysis was carried out. The data were analyzed with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, it was decided to conduct two analyses with a Kruskal-Wallis test and Bonferroni post hoc test. Then, the instrumented crowns were analyzed by SEM. The analysis of the data shows that the highest average roughness was within the composite group, while the best material appeared to be disilicate. Significant differences existed between the groups, between the materials, and between the different instruments (p-value < 0.05). In the qualitative analysis carried out by SEM, the classic steel insert eliminated the residues of golden finishing. The peek insert created alterations on all tested surfaces. The steel curette did not create particular problems, with the exception of zirconium, where it was possible to observe some scratch lines. Instrumentation with the titanium curette created deeper incisions than the steel curette in the composite and disilicate. The best results came from the ultrasonic steel insert, while the best material appeared to be disilicate.
