The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of fit accuracy and torque maintenance of zirconia and titanium abutments for internal tri-channel and external-hex implant connections

  • Siadat, Hakimeh (Implant Research Center and Department of Prosthodontics and Implant, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Beyabanaki, Elaheh (Prosthodontics Department, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mousavi, Niloufar (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Azad University, Dental Branch) ;
  • Alikhasi, Marzieh (Dental Research Center and Department of Prosthodontics and Implant, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2017.01.14
  • Accepted : 2017.06.19
  • Published : 2017.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of implant connection design (external vs. internal) on the fit discrepancy and torque loss of zirconia and titanium abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two regular platform dental implants, one with external connection ($Br{\aa}nemark$, Nobel Biocare AB) and the other with internal connection (Noble Replace, Nobel Biocare AB), were selected. Seven titanium and seven customized zirconia abutments were used for each connection design. Measurements of geometry, marginal discrepancy, and rotational freedom were done using video measuring machine. To measure the torque loss, each abutment was torqued to 35 Ncm and then opened by means of a digital torque wrench. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and t-test at ${\alpha}=0.05$ of significance. RESULTS. There were significant differences in the geometrical measurements and rotational freedom between abutments of two connection groups (P<.001). Also, the results showed significant differences between titanium abutments of internal and external connection implants in terms of rotational freedom (P<.001). Not only customized internal abutments but also customized external abutments did not have the exact geometry of prefabricated abutments (P<.001). However, neither connection type (P=.15) nor abutment material (P=.38) affected torque loss. CONCLUSION. Abutments with internal connection showed less rotational freedom. However, better marginal fit was observed in externally connected abutments. Also, customized abutments with either connection could not duplicate the exact geometry of their corresponding prefabricated abutment. However, neither abutment connection nor material affected torque loss values.

Keywords

References

  1. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An in vitro evaluation of titanium, zirconia, and alumina procera abutments with hexagonal connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:575-80.
  2. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An in vitro evaluation of ZiReal abutments with hexagonal connection: in original state and following abutment preparation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:108-14.
  3. Park JI, Lee Y, Lee JH, Kim YL, Bae JM, Cho HW. Comparison of fracture resistance and fit accuracy of customized zirconia abutments with prefabricated zirconia abutments in internal hexagonal implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:769-78.
  4. Quinn JB, Quinn GD. A practical and systematic review of Weibull statistics for reporting strengths of dental materials. Dent Mater 2010;26:135-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.006
  5. Butz F, Heydecke G, Okutan M, Strub JR. Survival rate, fracture strength and failure mode of ceramic implant abutments after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:838-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01515.x
  6. Andersson B, Glauser R, Maglione M, Taylor A. Ceramic implant abutments for short-span FPDs: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:640-6.
  7. Andersson B, Taylor A, Lang BR, Scheller H, Scharer P, Sorensen JA, Tarnow D. Alumina ceramic implant abutments used for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 1- to 3-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:432-8.
  8. Leutert CR, Stawarczyk B, Truninger TC, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. Bending moments and types of failure of zirconia and titanium abutments with internal implant-abutment connections: a laboratory study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:505-12.
  9. Almeida EO, Freitas AC Jr, Bonfante EA, Marotta L, Silva NR, Coelho PG. Mechanical testing of implant-supported anterior crowns with different implant/abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:103-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2443
  10. Gehrke SA, Souza Dos Santos Vianna M, Dedavid BA. Influence of bone insertion level of the implant on the fracture strength of different connection designs: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:715-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1039-7
  11. Lin MI, Shen YW, Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ. A retrospective study of implant-abutment connections on crestal bone level. J Dent Res 2013;92:202S-7S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513510322
  12. Penarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernandez AJ, Alonso-Gonzalez R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martinez J, Penarrocha-Diago M. Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1192-200.
  13. Asvanund P, Morgano SM. Photoelastic stress analysis of external versus internal implant-abutment connections. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:266-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60128-5
  14. Gracis S, Michalakis K, Vigolo P, Vult von Steyern P, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:202-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02556.x
  15. Asvanund P. A strain gauge analysis comparing external and internal implant-abutment connections. Implant Dent 2014;23:206-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000063
  16. Davi LR, Golin AL, Bernardes SR, Araujo CA, Neves FD. In vitro integrity of implant external hexagon after application of surgical placement torque simulating implant locking. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:125-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000200006
  17. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:604-10. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129384
  18. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:290-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x
  19. Mollersten L, Lockowandt P, Linden LA. Comparison of strength and failure mode of seven implant systems: an in vitro test. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:582-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70009-X
  20. Adatia ND, Bayne SC, Cooper LF, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of yttria-stabilized zirconia dental implant abutments. J Prosthodont 2009;18:17-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00378.x
  21. Kelly JR. Developing meaningful systematic review of CAD/CAM reconstructions and fiber-reinforced composites. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:205-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01443.x
  22. Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1289-96. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0389
  23. Fuster-Torres MA, Albalat-Estela S, Alcaniz-Raya M, Penarrocha-Diago M. CAD/CAM dental systems in implant dentistry: update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009;14:141-5.
  24. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:343-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0224-6
  25. Kapos T, Ashy LM, Gallucci GO, Weber HP, Wismeijer D. Computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing in prosthetic implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:110-7.
  26. Karatasli O, Kursoglu P, Capa N, Kazazoglu E. Comparison of the marginal fit of different coping materials and designs produced by computer aided manufacturing systems. Dent Mater J 2011;30:97-102. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2010-063
  27. Alikhasi M, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Naini RB, Khosronedjad N, Keshavarz S. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:996-1002. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2937
  28. Lang LA, Wang RF, May KB. The influence of abutment screw tightening on screw joint configuration. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:74-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.121488
  29. Att W, Hoischen T, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns on implant abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:218-25.
  30. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:721-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1998.tb02513.x
  31. Baixe S, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Etienne O. Microgap between zirconia abutments and titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:455-60.
  32. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. A comparison of implant/prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:421-33.
  33. Hecker DM, Eckert SE, Choi YG. Cyclic loading of implantsupported prostheses: comparison of gaps at the prostheticabutment interface when cycled abutments are replaced with as-manufactured abutments. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.11.005
  34. Binon PP. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:149-60.
  35. Binon PP, McHugh MJ. The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:511-9.
  36. 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.
  37. Kano SC, Binon PP, Bonfante G, Curtis DA. The effect of casting procedures on rotational misfit in castable abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:575-9.
  38. Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Measurement of the dimensions and abutment rotational freedom of gold-machined 3i UCLA-type abutments in the as-received condition, after casting with a noble metal alloy and porcelain firing. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:548-53. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.110497
  39. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:162-78.
  40. Binon PP. Evaluation of three slip fit hexagonal implants. Implant Dent 1996;5:235-48. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199600540-00002
  41. de Barros Carrilho GP, Dias RP, Elias CN. Comparison of external and internal hex implants' rotational freedom: a pilot study. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:165-6.
  42. Kano SC, Binon P, Bonfante G, Curtis DA. Effect of casting procedures on screw loosening in UCLA-type abutments. J Prosthodont 2006;15:77-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00078.x
  43. Barbosa GA, Bernardes SR, das Neves FD, Fernandes Neto AJ, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Relation between implant/abutment vertical misfit and torque loss of abutment screws. Braz Dent J 2008;19:358-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402008000400013
  44. 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
  45. Kerstein RB, Radke J. A comparison of fabrication precision and mechanical reliability of 2 zirconia implant abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1029-36.
  46. Garine WN, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Wodenscheck J, Murphy WC. Measurement of the rotational misfit and implant-abutment gap of all-ceramic abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:928-38.

Cited by

  1. study vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.388
  2. Mechanism of and factors associated with the loosening of the implant abutment screw: A review vol.31, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12494
  3. Hybrid-abutment-restoration: effect of material type on torque maintenance and fracture resistance after thermal aging vol.6, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00220-y
  4. Marginal adaptation of zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate overlays with different preparation designs vol.32, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12642
  5. Effect of Fabrication Technique on the Microgap of CAD/CAM Cobalt–Chrome and Zirconia Abutments on a Conical Connection Implant: An In Vitro Study vol.14, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092348
  6. The Influence of Laboratory Scanner Versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining the Implant Axis by Using Three Different Scan Abutments vol.11, pp.18, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188543