Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지

The Effect of Types of Abutment and Dynamic Loading on Microgap between Implant Fixture and Abutment

임플란트 지대주 종류와 동적하중이 고정체와 지대주의 미세간극에 미치는 영향

  • Oh, Byung-Doo (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Choi, Yu-Sung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Shin, Soo-Yeon (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 오병두 (단국대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 최유성 (단국대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 신수연 (단국대학교 치과대학 보철학교실)
  • Received : 2010.10.04
  • Accepted : 2010.12.25
  • Published : 2010.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Titanium and gold-alloy abutments have been used for a long-time in the clinical situations, but the use of zirconia abutments also increased. This study was designed to compare and evaluate the microgap differences according to types of abutment and dynamic loading. Titanium abutment, zirconia abutment and gold-alloy abutment (UCLA plastic) were connected into titanium implants of external hexagonal structure US II ${\phi}$ $3.75{\times}11.5$ mm (Osstem Co., Seoul, Korea) with the tightening torque of 30 Ncm. A sine type dynamic loading of 25-250 N and $30^{\circ}$ inclination from long axis was applied for $10^5$ times. Using the SEM both before and after the loadings, implant-abutment interfaces were analyzed on the labial, palatal, mesial and distal surface. The microgaps before and after the loading were compared, no statistically significant difference was observed caused by the dynamic loading on the labial, palatal, mesial or distal surface. Statistically significant difference was observed between UCLA and titanium group and between UCLA and zirconia group on both before and after the loading(p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between titanium and zirconia group. Loadings for $10^5$ times did not show significant effect to the microgaps between implants and abutments.

이전부터 사용된 티타늄, 금합금 지대주 및 최근 사용이 급증한 지르코니아 지대주와 임플란트의 계면에 대한 비교 연구와 동적하중이 계면에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구가 많지 않은 실정이다. 본 연구에서 지대주 종류와 동적 하중에 따른 미세간극의 차이를 주사전자현미경 분석을 통하여 비교평가 하였다. USII ${\phi}3.75{\times}11.5mm$ (Osstem Co., Seoul, Korea) 티타늄 임플란트에 티타늄 지대주, 지르코니아 지대주, 주조 금합금 (UCLA plastic) 지대주를 각 군당 7개씩, 30Ncm의 조임회전력으로 연결하였다. 25-250N의 sine형 동적하중을 장축 방향에서 $30^{\circ}$ 경사로 $10^5$회 시행하였다. 하중 전후에 계면의 미세간극을 순측, 구개측, 근심측, 원심측 부위에서 측정하였고, 그 결과 동적 하중으로 인한 통계적 유의성은 없었다. 지대주 종류에 따른 미세간극을 비교한 결과, 동적하중 시행 전후 모두 UCLA 군과 티타늄 군, UCLA 군과 지르코니아 군 사이에 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다(p<0.05). 티타늄 군과 지르코니아 군 사이에는 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다. UCLA 지대주는 정밀 연삭된 티타늄, 지르코니아 지대주 보다 더 큰 미세간극을 보였고 $10^5$회 동적하중은 미세간극에 영향을 미치지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Tolman DE, Laney WR. Tissue-integrated prosthesis complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:477-84.
  2. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8: 162-78.
  3. Binon PP. Evaluation of three slip fit hexagonal implants. Implant Dent 1996;5:235-48. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199600540-00002
  4. Morgan MJ, James DF, Pilliar RM. Fractures of the fixture component of an osseointegrated implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:409-14.
  5. Dellow AG, Driessen CH, Nel HJ. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of the interfacial fit of interchanged components of four dental implant systems. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:216-21.
  6. O'Mahony A, MacNeil SR, Cobb CM. Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: a retrospective analysis of failed implants. Quintessence Int 2000;31:249-56.
  7. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK et al. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-83. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1372
  8. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:527-40.
  9. Gross M, Abramovich I, Weiss EI. Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: A comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:94-100.
  10. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Bossmann K et al. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:875-81.
  11. Gould TR, Brunette DM, Westbury L. The attachment mechanism of epithelial cells to titanium in vitro. J Periodontal Res 1981;16:611-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.1981.tb00999.x
  12. Byrne D, Houston F, Cleary R, et al. The fit of cast and premachined implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:184-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70108-8
  13. Prestipino V, Ingber A. Esthetic high strength implant -abutments. Part I. J Esthet Dent 1993;5:29-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1993.tb00741.x
  14. Yildirim M, Edelhoff D, Hanisch O et al. Ceramic abutments-a new era in achieving optimal esthetics in implant dentistry. Int J Perodontics Restor Dent 2000;20:81-91.
  15. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO et al. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:721-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1998.tb02513.x
  16. ISO/DIS 14801. Dental implants - Dynamic continuous fatigue test. International Organization for Standardization, 2001.
  17. Graf H. Bruxism. Dent Clin North Am 1969;13 (3):659-65.
  18. Brunski JB, Hipp JA. In vivo forces on endosteal implants: a measurement system and biomechanical considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:82-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(84)80112-2
  19. Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:581-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90084-X
  20. Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE et al. Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:436-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70030-2
  21. Ko YS, Son SG, Chung CH. Finite element stress analysis of osseointegrated implant prosthesis according to fitness of superstructure. J Korean Academy Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion 1996;12:173-91.
  22. Jung SH, Ma JS, Chung CH. A Comparative study on the fit in prostheses using premade gold cylinder and plastic cylinder. JKorean Acad Prosthodont 1999;37: 825-34.
  23. Kohal RJ, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P et al. Three-dimensional computerized stress analysis of commercially pure titanium and yttrium-partially stabilized zirconia implants. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15:189-94.
  24. Jorneus L, Jemt T, Carlsson L. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:353-9.
  25. Yuzugullu B, Avci M. The implant-abutment interface of alumina and zirconia abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;10:113-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00071.x
  26. Carr AB, Larsen PE, Papazoglou E et al. Reverse torque failure of screw-shaped implants in baboons: baseline data for abutment torque application. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:167-74.
  27. Carr AB, Brunski JB, Hurley E. Effects of fabrication, finishing, and polishing procedures on preload in prostheses using conventional gold and plastic cylinders. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:589-98.
  28. Hurson S. Laboratory techniques to prevent screw loosening on dental implants. J Dent Technol 1996;13:30-7.