Fracture Strength After Fatigue Loading of Lithium Disilicate Pressed Zirconia Crowns.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of fatigued lithium disilicate pressed zirconia crowns versus other ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lithium disilicate pressed zirconia, fluorapatite pressed zirconia, monolithic lithium disilicate, and monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated. Cyclic and static loadings were applied to the mesiobuccal cusp tip after thermocycling and fracture strengths were recorded. RESULTS: Fatigued lithium disilicate pressed zirconia crowns were found to have a fracture resistance of 9,117.81 ± 727.04 N, compared with 9,240.61 ± 887.21 N for monolithic zirconia crowns, 3,030.18 ± 1,505.83 N for fluorapatite pressed zirconia crowns, and 4,173.94 ± 877.46 N for monolithic lithium disilicate crowns (P = .001). CONCLUSION: This in vitro study shows that fatigued lithium disilicate pressed zirconia and monolithic zirconia crowns have better fracture resistance than fluorapatite pressed zirconia and monolithic lithium disilicate crowns.

Marginal and Internal Fit of Conventional Metal-Ceramic and Lithium Disilicate CAD/CAM Crowns.

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the marginal and internal gap widths of lithium disilicate computer-aided design / computer-assisted manufacture (LDC) crowns and conventionally produced porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns. A convenience sample of 21 patients treated with a single restoration was selected. PFM and LDC crowns were fabricated for each selected abutment tooth, following traditional crown preparation. Silicone replicas were produced, and internal gaps and marginal gaps were measured. Internal gaps were significantly larger for the axial and occlusal surfaces of LDC crowns than for those of PFM crowns (P < .001). Marginal gaps were not significantly different (P > .05). Both LDC crowns and PFM crowns showed clinically acceptable marginal fit.

Implant overdenture using a locator bar system by drill and tapping technique in a mandible edentulous patient: a case report.

Various options have been introduced for the selection of implant overdenture attachments. Attachment wear due to the repeated insertion and removal of dentures has caused problems such as decreased retention and the requirement for suprastructure remanufacturing. In these cases, a Locator bar system was applied using the drill and tapping technique to achieve total retrievability. In a 55-year-old female patient who showed three degrees of mobility in most of her teeth due to severe alveolar bone loss, a complete denture in the maxilla and an implant supported type overdenture in the mandible were planned after extracting all the remaining teeth. Six implants were placed from canine region to the distal molar region, and the locator was connected to the milled bar using the drill and tapping technique. For a 61-year-old female edentulous patient who complained of poor retention with old denture, a complete denture in the maxilla and an implant-tissue supported type overdenture in the mandible were planned. Four implants were placed in front of mental foramen, and the Locator was also connected to the Hader bar using the drill and tapping technique. With this technique, female parts can be easily replaced, and retention can be continuously maintained.