EC Dental Science

Aim of the Study: This study's objective was to evaluate the stress distribution around a fixture with three alternative superstructure-fixed restorations.

Materials and Methods: This study aimed to examine the effects of immediate versus delayed loading of two types of crown materials (in-cream - porcelain bonded to metal crowns) on the peri-implant soft and hard tissue.

The patients were divided into two groups depending on when the implants were loaded.

Patients in group I received implants using a delayed loading technique that involved submerging the implants for six months (ten implants).

Group II patients had immediate implant loading, temporary restorations were created using occlusion, and three weeks later, permanent restorations were placed in occlusion (ten implants).

Each group was then divided into two subgroups, each with five implants, based on the type of superstructure materials used in the study: Subgroup A: To repair implants, metallic crowns were covered with low-fusing porcelain veneers.

The crown restorations on the implants in subgroup B were [all ceramic in-ceramic, alumina].

As part of the clinical examination of the cases, the gingival index and pocket depth at the loading time and 3, 6, and 9 months after loading were noted.

Foto assesses one loss and bone density surrounding the implants; radiographic examination also includes an isoquant semi-direct semi-direct biography.

Results: Standard deviation (SD) values were presented along with the data. The student's t-test was used to compare the two groups and the two supra-structure kinds. Using a paired t-test, each group’s temporal course of changes was investigated. Non-parametric tests were used for the comparisons since the GI data had a non-parametric distribution. The Mann-Whitney U test results were compared between the two groups. This non-parametric test is used in place of the t-test performed on the students. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test examined how each group changed over time. Non-parametric tests were employed for the comparisons due to the non-parametric distribution of the data on bone loss. The Mann-Whitney U test results were compared between the two groups. This non-parametric test is used in place of the t-test performed on the students. The criterion for significance was set at P 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows, version 16.0 of the Statistical Package for Scientific Studies.

Conclusion: Statistics were applied to the tabulated data; the following conclusion could be drawn from this study: 1-Delayed loading implants had significantly higher bone density and lower bone loss than immediate loading implants regardless of the supra-structure type.

 Keywords: Implant; All Ceramic; Metal Ceramic; Immediate Loading; Delayed Loading

1. Ashtiani AH., et al. “Comparison the degree of enamel wear behavior opposed to Polymer-infiltrated ceramic and feldspathic porcelain”. Dental Research Journal 16.2 (2019): 71-75.
2. Cattell MJ., et al. “The biaxial flexural strength of two pressable ceramic systems”. Journal of Dentistry 27.3 (1999): 183-196.
3. Conrad HJ., et al. “Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 98.5 (2007): 389-404.
4. Helvey Gregg. “Monolithic Versus Bilayered Restorations: A Closer Look. Chairside Magazine”. Chairside Magazine (2011): 16-23.
5. Özarslan MM., et al. “Effects of different surface finishing procedures on the change in surface roughness and color of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network material”. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 8.1 (2016): 16-20.
6. Alhenaki Aasem Mutlaq. “Comparison of mechanical and optical properties between three different CAD/CAM materials”. Nova Southeastern University, Florida (2015).
7. Albakry M., et al. “Fracture toughness and hardness evaluation of three pressable all-ceramic dental materials”. Journal of Dentistry 31.3 (2003): 181-188.
8. Stenhagen I and Mulic A. “Hardness testing of dental materials and tooth substance”. Nordic Institute for Dental Materials (2017).
9. Pestana Passos S., et al. “Enamel wear opposing different surface conditions of different CAD/CAM ceramics”. Quintessence International 44.10 (2013): 743-751.
10. Elhomiamy E., et al. “Wear behaviour and surface roughness of polymer infiltrated ceramic material compared to pressable glass ceramic”. Alexandria Dental Journal 40.1 (2015): 65-70.
11. Miyazaki T., et al. “Current status of zirconia restoration”. Journal of Prosthodontic Research 57.4 (2013): 236-261.
12. Kang SH., et al. “Physical/mechanical properties and microstructure of dental lithium disilicate ceramics for chairside CAD/CAM restoration”. Korean Journal of Dental Materials 41.1 (2014): 19-28.
13. Hassan S and Nevin G. “Two-body wear and surface roughness of three different ceramic systems and their enamel antagonist: an In vitro study”. Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls 4.4 (2017): 347-357.
14. Vita Homepage (2020).
15. Heintze SD., et al. “Wear of ceramic and antagonist-A systematic evaluation of influencing factors In vitro”. Dental Materials 24.4 (2008): 433-449.
16. Jung Yu-Seok., et al. “A study on the in-vitro wear of the natural tooth structure by opposing zirconia or dental porcelain”. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2.3 (2010): 111-115.
17. Anusavice Kenneth J., et al. “Phillips’ science of dental materials”. Elsevier Health Sciences (2012).
18. Xu Zhou., et al. “A comparative study on the wear behavior of a polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) material and tooth enamel”. Dental Materials 33.12 (2017): 1351-1361.
19. Silva Nelson RFA., et al. “Comparative reliability analyses of zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate restorations In vitro and In vivo”. The Journal of the American Dental Association 142 (2011): 4S-9S.
20. Zafar MS and Ahmed N. “Effects of wear on hardness and stiffness of restorative dental materials”. Life Science Journal 11 (2014): 11-18.
21. Hickel R., et al. “Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials”. Clinical Oral Investigations 11.1 (2007): 5-33.
22. Rosentritt M., et al. “Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics”. Clinical oral investigations 16.3 (2012): 935-943.
23. Mörmann Werner H., et al. “Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness”. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 20 (2013): 113-125.