ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Comparison of lithium disilicate and feldspathic CAD-on systems in implant-supported crowns: a combined mechanical testing and FEA study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the failure loads and stress distribution of two different CAD-on systems used for implant-supported crowns.
methodsImplant-supported crowns were designed with CAD/CAM software (Cerec InLab V15.0) and fabricated using the CAD-on technique (n = 12 per group): Group ZF (zirconia core veneered with feldspathic ceramic) and Group ZL (zirconia core veneered with lithium disilicate ceramic). Following cementation onto titanium abutments, the restorations were subjected to failure load testing using a universal testing machine. Simultaneously, 3D models of FEA were generated to evaluate Von Mises, Maximum Principal, and Minimum Principal stress distributions across the restoration, implant, abutment, and supporting bone. The mean failure loads were compared using the independent samples t-test (p < 0.05).
resultsGroup ZL exhibited significantly higher failure loads (4649.22 ± 733.42 N) compared to Group ZF (2085.91 ± 555.61 N) (p < 0.001). While stress concentrations were primarily located at the implant neck in both groups, the distribution on the abutments differed significantly. In Group ZF, delamination was the primary failure mode (100%), whereas Group ZL presented bulk fractures and abutment deformation.
conclusionWhile the Group ZL exhibited significantly superior failure load, the veneer delamination observed in Group ZF could act as a protective failure mode. Although the FEA revealed that different veneer ceramics did not alter the stress distribution across the implant and the bone, the selection of restorative system should ideally balance high fracture resistance with the biomechanical safety of the implant components.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.