Flexural strengths of implant-supported zirconia based bridges in posterior regions
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 21, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Mansour Rismanchian1, Soufia Shafiei2, Farzaneh Nourbakhshian3
1Dental Implants Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Purpose:
Impact forces in implant supported FDP (fixed dental prosthesis) are higher than that of tooth supported FDPs and the compositions used in frameworks also has a paramount role for biomechanical reasons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the flexural strength of two different zirconia frameworks.
Materials And Methods:
Two implant abutments with 3.8 mm and 4.5 mm platform were used as premolar and molar. They were mounted vertically in an acrylic resin block. A model with steel retainers and removable abutments was fabricated by milling machine; and 10 FDP frameworks were fabricated for each Biodenta and Cercon systems. All samples were thermo-cycled for 2000 times in 5-55℃ temperature and embedded in 37℃ artificial saliva for one week. The flexural test was done by a rod with 2 mm ending diameter which was applied to the multi-electromechanical machine. The force was inserted until observing fracture. The collected data were analyzed with SPSS software ver.15, using Weibull modulus and independent t-test with the level of significance at α=.05.
Results:
The mean load bearing capacity values were higher in Biodenta but with no significant differences (P>.05). The Biodenta frameworks showed higher load bearing capacity (F0=1700) than Cercon frameworks (F0=1520) but the reliability (m) was higher in Cercon (m=7.5).
Conclusion:
There was no significant difference between flexural strengths of both zirconia based framework systems; and both Biodenta and Cercon systems are capable to withstand biting force (even parafunctions) in posterior implant-supported bridges with no significant differences.
