Retention force and stress distribution analysis of the cementless double crown-type implant-supported prosthesis.

Statement of Problem: Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses have been classified into screw-retained and cement-retained types, and each retaining type has complications. A novel retentive cementless double crown (CLD) type of the implant-supported fixed prosthesis has been developed. CLD has air pockets in the intaglio surface of the crown and does not require cement or a screw hole. However, studies on the retention force and stress distribution of the system are lacking.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the retention force and stress distribution in the CLD system.
Material and Methods: The specimen comprised an implant, a titanium abutment, and a zirconia crown. Retention forces of 10 specimens of the CLD type were measured at no loading and after cyclic loading for 50, 100, 200, 600, 10 000, and 1 000 000 cycles by using a universal testing machine with a custom attachment device. Forty specimens of the stress distribution test were divided into 4 groups based on the retention type (cement-retained or CLD type) and load direction (vertical or oblique). Strain gauges were attached onto the buccal and lingual sides of the implant, and microstrain values were measured. One-way analysis of variance with the post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference test was performed on the retention force data, and the t test was performed to analyze the microstrain value data (α=.05).
Results: Retention forces after 0, 50, 100, 200, 600, 10 000, and 1 000 000 load cycles were 18.12 ±6.16 N, 20.47 ±5.78 N, 19.79 ±6.61 N, 18.46 ±5.23 N, 19.60 ±6.93 N, 21.75 ±5.03 N, and 40.91 ±9.32 N, respectively, and after 1 000 000 cycles, the retention force was significantly higher than that of other load cycles (P<.05). The mean of maximum microstrain values under the vertical load were similar in the cement-retained type (buccal side, 834.96 ±53.69 μm/m; lingual side, 490.76 ±34.12 μm/m) and the CLD type (buccal side, 814.28 ±71.20 μm/m; lingual side, 479.10 ±30.74) (P>.05), and the mean of maximum microstrain values under the oblique load was also similar in the cement-retained type (buccal side, 1991.04 ±109.89 μm/m; lingual side, -2232.41 ±189.88) and the CLD type (buccal side, 1932.47 ±152.51 μm/m; lingual side, -2097.47 ±130.69 μm/m) (P>.05).
Conclusions: The CLD type had clinically acceptable retention during 1 000 000 load cycles and had a similar or better stress distribution capability than the cement-retained type.
(Copyright © 2020 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)