The Experts below are selected from a list of 10578 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Hideo Matsumura - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fracture resistance of single Tooth Implant supported zirconia based indirect composite layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P < 0.044) than that in the other groups, which did not significantly differ. Conclusions The fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E) is comparable to that of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and zirconia-based all-ceramic (ZAC) restorations. Application of Estenia Opaque Primer to zirconia ceramic framework provides superior fracture resistance in Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns.
-
Fracture resistance of single‐Tooth Implant‐supported zirconia‐based indirect composite‐layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P
Kohei Taguchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fracture resistance of single Tooth Implant supported zirconia based indirect composite layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P < 0.044) than that in the other groups, which did not significantly differ. Conclusions The fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E) is comparable to that of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and zirconia-based all-ceramic (ZAC) restorations. Application of Estenia Opaque Primer to zirconia ceramic framework provides superior fracture resistance in Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns.
-
Fracture resistance of single‐Tooth Implant‐supported zirconia‐based indirect composite‐layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P
Peter Rammelsberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fracture behavior of all-ceramic, Implant-supported, and Tooth–Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2018Co-Authors: Abdul Rahman Alkharrat, Marc Schmitter, Stefan Rues, Peter RammelsbergAbstract:Objectives In vitro investigation of the effects of fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) support and loading conditions on the fracture behavior of all-ceramic, zirconia-based FDP veneered with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-manufactured lithium disilicate ceramic. Materials and methods Based on a model for a 3-unit FDP in the molar region (Tooth in region 15, Implant in region 17), 16 identical zirconia frameworks were fabricated and veneered with milled lithium disilicate ceramic. Another 16 FDPs were manufactured similarly, using a model in which the Tooth was replaced by an Implant. The specimens underwent 10,000 thermal cycles between 6.5 and 60 °C and 1,200,000 chewing cycles with a force magnitude of 100 N. All were then subsequently loaded until fracture in a universal testing device. Half of the FDPs were subjected to centric and axial loading on the pontic, the others to eccentric and oblique loading on one cusp of the pontic. Results No failures were observed after artificial aging. Fracture loads of Tooth–Implant-supported restorations were 1636 ± 158 and 1086 ± 156 N for axial and oblique loading, respectively; Implant-supported FDPs fractured at 1789 ± 202 and 1200 ± 68 N, respectively. Differences were significant for load application ( P
-
prognosis of Implants and abutment teeth under combined Tooth Implant supported and solely Implant supported double crown retained removable dental prostheses
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Peter Rammelsberg, Justo Lorenzo Bermejo, Gunda Bernhart, Marc Schmitter, Stefanie SchwarzAbstract:Objective Objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of complications in dental Implants and abutment teeth used for combined Tooth-Implant- and solely Implant-supported double crown-retained removable dental prostheses (RDPs). Material and methods Patients were selected from a prospective clinical study. Seventy-three RDPs retained by 234 Implants and 107 abutment teeth were placed in 39 men and 22 women with a mean age of 65 years. Forty-five RDPs were located in the maxilla and 28 in the mandible. Thirty-four RDPs were solely Implant-supported and 39 were combined Tooth-Implant-supported. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate success defined as survival without severe abutment-related complications, and Cox regression was used to isolate the most relevant prognostic risk factors. Results After a median observation period of 2.7 years for the RDPs, six Implants failed and eleven Implants were diagnosed with peri-Implantitis. Four abutment teeth were extracted, and three abutment teeth showed severe complications requiring extended interventions. For both abutment teeth and Implants, Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed a 5-year probability of success of 85% for solely Implant-supported RDPs and 92% for combined Tooth-Implant-supported RDPs. Multiple Cox regression identified RDP location (P = 0.01), age (P = 0.01), and gender (P = 0.04) as prognostic risk factors for severe Implant-related complications. Solely Implant-supported RPDs showed a poorer prognosis, but the risk difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions Preliminary data suggest that the combination of teeth and Implants to support double crown-retained RDPs may result in a prognostic advantage. The present findings should be validated in independent studies.
-
Survival of Double‐Crown‐Retained Dentures Either Tooth‐Implant or Solely Implant‐Supported: An 8‐Year Retrospective Study
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2012Co-Authors: Stefanie Schwarz, Gunda Bernhart, Alexander J. Hassel, Peter RammelsbergAbstract:PURPOSE: To compare survival and incidence of complications for solely Implant-supported double-crown-retained dentures (DCRDs) and combined Tooth-Implant-supported DCRDs for restoration of a complete jaw. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were consecutively admitted to treatment at the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, during a time period from 2003 to 2011. Schedule and unscheduled visits were recorded on standardized documentation forms. Age, gender, location of Implants, number of abutment teeth, jaw, and antagonist were assessed as possible factors affecting the number of complications per patient. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with 66 DCRDs on 209 Implants and 102 teeth were included. Of these, 30 dentures on 129 Implants were solely Implant-supported whereas the other 36 were combined Tooth-Implant-supported. During an observation period of up to 8.3 years (mean 3.4 years; SD 1.9) superstructure survival was 93.3% for the solely Implant-supported DCRDs and 100% for the combined Tooth-Implant-supported DCRDs. Survival without major complications was 86.7% and 83.3%, respectively. Gender and location of both superstructure and Implants were statistically associated with a greater number of complications. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this exploratory retrospective study, not only solely Implant-supported DCRDs but also superstructures combining remaining teeth and Implants within DCRDs might be a reliable treatment option for elderly patients. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this, however.
-
Clinical success of Implant-supported and Tooth–Implant-supported double crown-retained dentures
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2012Co-Authors: Gunda Bernhart, Olaf Gabbert, Andreas Koob, Marc Schmitter, Thomas Stober, Peter RammelsbergAbstract:The objective of this retrospective study was to compare biological and technical complications of Implant-supported and Tooth–Implant-supported double crown-retained dentures (DCRDs) with those of Tooth-supported DCRDs. Sixty-three DCRDs were monitored. One study group included 16 prostheses with a combination of Implants and natural teeth as double crowns (ti group), whereas in the second study group, 19 dentures were retained exclusively on Implants (ii group); a third study group with 28 exclusively Tooth-supported dentures served as controls (tt group). Tooth loss, Implant failure, and technical complications (loss of retention of primary crown, abutment screw loosening, loss of facing, fracture of resin denture teeth and fracture of saddle resin) were analysed. During the observation period of 24 months, no Implants or teeth were lost in the ti group and three technical complications were recorded. In the ii group, two Implants were lost, two cases of peri-Implantitis occurred and four technical complications were observed. In the tt group, two cases of Tooth loss and seven technical complications were observed. At the time of the last examination, all prostheses of the ti group and the ii group were functional. Patients of these two study groups reported high satisfaction with both function and aesthetics with no significant difference between the two groups. Treatment with DCRDs showed comparable results in the three study groups. The 2-year results indicate that double crowns can be recommended for Implant and combined Tooth–Implant-retained dentures.
-
Short-term complications of Implant-supported and combined Tooth-Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012Co-Authors: Peter Rammelsberg, Stefanie Schwarz, Christin Schroeder, Justo Lorenzo Bermejo, Olaf GabbertAbstract:Objective The objective of this clinical study was to evaluate survival and incidence of complications for metal-ceramic and all-ceramic Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and Tooth-Implant-supported FDPs. Material and methods One-hundred and sixty-six FDPs placed in 132 patients from a prospective study were selected for this retrospective analysis. Included were 91 conventional Implant-supported FDPs with Implant support on both extremities, 27 Implant-supported cantilever FDPs, and 48 Tooth-Implant-supported FDPs. All restorations were veneered with ceramic. Twenty-six FDPs had a zirconia framework and 140 had a metal framework. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to estimate FDP success defined as complication-free survival and the Cox regression model was used to isolate risk factors for the most frequent complications. Results Within a median follow-up of 1 year and 2 months, three failures were caused by a failed Implant (n = 2) and by extended chipping of the veneer (n = 1). In contrast with this low incidence of failure was a high incidence of complications including chipping (n = 29), loss of retention (n = 35), and abutment fractures (n = 2). Multivariate survival analysis revealed a significantly greater incidence of chipping for males and a tendency to increased incidence of chipping for zirconia-based FDPs. The incidence of loss of retention tended to be less for Tooth-Implant-supported FDPs, for which semi-permanent cement was the only significant risk factor, with a hazard ratio of almost 5. Conclusions As chipping of the ceramic veneer was the most frequent complication leading to substantial aftercare, improvements of ceramic veneers are desirable for zirconia-based and metal-based FDPs.
Markus B. Blatz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fracture resistance of single Tooth Implant supported zirconia based indirect composite layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P < 0.044) than that in the other groups, which did not significantly differ. Conclusions The fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E) is comparable to that of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and zirconia-based all-ceramic (ZAC) restorations. Application of Estenia Opaque Primer to zirconia ceramic framework provides superior fracture resistance in Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns.
-
Fracture resistance of single‐Tooth Implant‐supported zirconia‐based indirect composite‐layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P
Shingo Kamio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fracture resistance of single Tooth Implant supported zirconia based indirect composite layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P < 0.044) than that in the other groups, which did not significantly differ. Conclusions The fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E) is comparable to that of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and zirconia-based all-ceramic (ZAC) restorations. Application of Estenia Opaque Primer to zirconia ceramic framework provides superior fracture resistance in Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns.
-
Fracture resistance of single‐Tooth Implant‐supported zirconia‐based indirect composite‐layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Shingo Kamio, Markus B. Blatz, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P