Fracture Resistance Behaviors of Titanium‐Zirconium and Zirconia Implants
Authors: Hanes Brenda , Feitosa Sabrina , Phasuk Kamolphob , Levon John A. , Morton Dean , Lin Wei‐Shao 
Published: October 2021

AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the fracture resistance behaviors of titanium‐zirconium, one‐piece zirconia, and two‐piece zirconia implants restored by zirconia crowns and different combinations of abutment materials (zirconia and titanium) and retention modes (cement‐retained and screw‐retained zirconia crowns).Material and MethodsThree research groups (n=12) were evaluated according to combinations of abutment material, retention mode, and implant type. In the control group (TTC), titanium‐zirconium implants (∅ 4.1 mm RN, 12 mm, Roxolid; Straumann USA, Andover, MA) and prefabricated titanium abutments (RN synOcta Cementable Abutment, H 5.5 mm; Straumann USA) were used to support cement‐retained zirconia crowns. In the second group (ZZC), one‐piece zirconia implants (PURE Ceramic Implant Monotype, ∅ 4.1 mm RD, 12 mm, AH 5.5 mm; Straumann USA) were used to support cement‐retained zirconia crowns. In the third group (ZTS), two‐piece zirconia implants (PURE Ceramic Implant, ∅ 4.1 mm RD, 12 mm) and prefabricated titanium abutments (CI RD PUREbase Abutment, H 5.5 mm) were used to support screw‐retained zirconia crowns. All zirconia crowns were manufactured in the same anatomic contour with a 5‐axis dental mill and blended 3 and 5 mol% yttria‐stabilized zirconia (LayZir A2). Implants were inserted into specimen holders made of epoxy resin‐glass fiber composite. All specimens were then subject to artificial aging in an incubator at 37°C for 90 days. Fracture resistance of specimen assemblies was tested under static compression load using the universal testing machine based on ISO14801 specification. The peak fracture loads were recorded. All specimens were examined at the end of the test microscopically at 5× and 10× magnification to detect any catastrophic failures. Comparisons between groups for differences in peak fracture load were made using Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests and Weibull and Kaplan‐Meier survival analyses (α = 0.05).ResultsThe TTC group (942 ± 241 N) showed significantly higher peak fracture loads than the ZZC (645 ± 165 N) and ZTS (650 ± 124 N) groups (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between ZZC and ZTS groups (p = 0.940). The survival probability based on the Weibull and Kaplan‐Meier models demonstrated different failure molds between titanium‐zirconium and zirconia implants, in which the TTC group remained in the plastic strain zone for a longer period before fracture when compared to ZZC and ZTS groups. Catastrophic failures, with implant fractures at the embedding level or slightly below, were only observed in the ZZC and ZTS groups.ConclusionsCement‐retained zirconia crowns supported by titanium‐zirconium implants and prefabricated titanium abutments showed superior peak fracture loads and better survival probability behavior. One‐piece zirconia implants with cement‐retained zirconia crowns and two‐piece zirconia implants with screw‐retained zirconia crowns on prefabricated titanium abutment showed similar peak fracture loads and survival probability behavior. Titanium‐zirconium and zirconia implants could withstand average intraoral mastication loads in the incisor region. This study was conducted under static load, room temperature (21.7°C), and dry condition, and full impacts of intraoral hydrothermal aging and dynamic loading conditions on the zirconia implants should be considered and studied further.