RESUMO
The aim of this prospective study is to investigate implant stability and the reliability of different measuring devices according to implant placement site and duration in patients aged over 65 years. The study evaluated 60 implants (diameter: 3.5/4.0/4.5/5.0 mm and length: 8.5/10.0/11.5 mm) in 60 patients aged ≥ 65 years. The implant placement sites were divided into six evenly distributed sections (n = 10), i.e., maxillary right-posterior, A; maxillary anterior, B; maxillary left-posterior, C; mandibular right-posterior, D; mandibular anterior, E; mandibular left-posterior, F. Participants visited the hospital six times: implant surgery, 1V; stitch removal, 2V; 1-month follow-up, 3V; 2-month follow-up, 4V; before final restoration delivery, 5V; and after final restoration delivery, 6V. The implant stability was evaluated with the Osstell Mentor (ISQ), Periotest M (PTV), and Anycheck (IST). The mean values of ISQ, PTV, and IST were analyzed (α = 0.05). ISQ, PTV, and IST results of 4V and 5V were significantly higher than those of 1V (p < 0.05). The lowest ISQ results occurred in the E location at 4V and 5V (p < 0.05). In all mandibular locations, IST results of 6V were significantly higher than those of 1V, 2V, 3V, and 4V (p < 0.05). ISQ results were negatively correlated with PTV and positively correlated with IST, and PTV was negatively correlated with IST. By considering various factors affecting the stability of the implant, it is necessary to determine the appropriate implant load application time. This could help increase the implant success rate in elderly patients. And as a diagnostic device for implant stability and the evaluation of osseointegration in elderly patients, Anycheck was also able to prove its relative reliability compared to Osstell ISQ Mentor and Periotest M.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML) aging on fracture resistance and wear behavior of various chairside computer-aided-designed/computer-assisted-manufactured (CAD/CAM) premolar crowns cemented on standardized tooth abutments. METHODS: Eighty chairside CAD/CAM crowns were prepared using lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD; EM), zirconia-infiltrated lithium silicate (Celtra Duo; CD), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (Vita Enamic; VE), and resin nanoceramics (Cerasmart; CS) (n = 20). The specimens were divided into two groups (n = 10). In one group, they were subjected to TCML: thermocycling (6000 cycles in distilled water at 5-55 °C) and mechanical loading (50 N for 1.2 × 106 cycles), while in control group they were stored in distilled water (37 °C for 24 h). The fracture load, height loss, and volume wear of the crowns were measured after TCML. Fractography was performed on fractured specimens. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and multiple comparison tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: The mean fracture loads of EM and CD were significantly higher than those of EC and CS (p<0.05). There was no significant change in the fracture load of any CAD/CAM crowns after TCML (p>0.05). CS exhibited a significantly higher volume wear than the other materials investigated. The wear tracts of all TCML crowns acted as failure origins during the fracture test. CONCLUSIONS: The fracture resistance of glass-ceramic CAD/CAM crowns was significantly higher than that of resin composite crowns. A 5-year TCML aging did not affect the fracture resistance of CAD/CAM crowns investigated. However, TCML treatment produces a larger wear track in CS than in other materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Appropriate chairside CAD/CAM restorative material should be selected for successful clinical practice after considering the fracture and wear resistance of the crowns.
