Purpose: To compare the fracture resistance of a press-on ceramic custom implant restoration with pressed and cemented restorations.
Materials and methods: Thirty-two (32) lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press) custom hybrid abutment restorations were fabricated. The restorations were divided into two groups (n = 16) according to the construction technique: the commercial control group (C) and the press-on group (P). For the control group, lithium disilicate restorations were pressed and cemented on titanium bases. For the press-on group, lithium disilicate pressable ceramic (IPS e.max Press) was pressed on the titanium bases with injection molding. Each group was further divided according to the restoration design, either screw- or cement-retained, into two subgroups of eight specimens each. Specimens of C group were divided into screw-retained (cemented hybrid abutment crown, CHAC) or cement-retained (cemented hybrid abutment, CHA). Specimens of the P group were also divided into screw-retained (pressed hybrid abutment crown, PHAC) and cement-retained (pressed hybrid abutment, PHA). The specimens were subjected to static loading until failure with a universal testing machine. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the effect of different techniques and designs on the fracture resistance of the samples (P < .05), followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test (α = .05).
Results: C group showed higher mean fracture resistance (812.443 ± 129.14 N) than P group (596.71 ± 108.83 N), and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). Regarding restoration design, HA groups showed higher mean fracture resistance (742.621 ± 153.82 N) than HAC (666.53 ± 163.07 N) groups with no statistically significant difference. CHA showed the highest mean fracture resistance (817.65 ± 161.76 N), while PHAC showed the lowest mean fracture resistance values (525.83 ± 47.29 N).
Conclusion: The commercial cemented lithium disilicate restorations showed higher fracture resistance than the press-on restorations, although both showed a maximum load capacity that was greater than physiologic incisal force in the anterior region, and both hybrid abutments and hybrid abutment crowns were equally efficient in withstanding occlusal loading forces.