The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE 1-PIECE AND 2-PIECE CONICAL ABUTMENT JOINT: THE STRENGTH AND THE FATIGUE RESISTANCE

  • Kwon, Taek-Ka (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yang, Jae-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jai-Bong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2007.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem. The performance and maintenance of implant-supported prostheses are primarily dependent upon load transmission both at the bone-to-implant interface and within the implant-abutment-prosthesis complex. The design of the interface between components has been shown to have a profound influence on the stability of screw joints. Purpose. The Purpose of this study was to compare the strength and the fatigue resistance of 1-piece and 2-piece abutment connected to oral implant, utilizing an internal conical interface. Material and methods. Twenty $Implatium^{(R)}$ tapered implants were embedded to the top of the fixture in acrylic resin blocks. Ten $Combi^{(R)}$(1-piece) and $Dual^{(R)}$(2-piece) abutments of the same dimension were assembled to the implant, respectively. The assembled units were mounted in a testing machine. A load was applied perpendicular to the long axis of the assemblies and the loading points was at the distance of 7mm from the block surface. Half of 1-piece and 2-piece abutment-implant units were tested for the evaluation of the bending strength, and the others were cyclically loaded for the evaluation of the fatigue resistance until plastic deformation occurred. Nonparametric statistical analysis was performed for the results. Results. Mean plastic and maximum bending moment were $1,900{\pm}18Nmm,\;3,609{\pm}106Nmm$ for the 1-piece abutment, and $1,250{\pm}31Nmm,\;2,688{\pm}166Nmm$ for the 2-piece abutment, respectively. Mean cycles and standard deviation when implant-abutment joint showed a first plastic deformation were $238,610{\pm}44,891$. cycles for the 1-piece abutment and $9,476{\pm}3,541$ cycles for the 2-piece abutment. A 1-piece abutment showed significantly higher value than a 2-piece abutment in the first plastic bending moment (p<.05), maximum bending moment (p<.05) and fatigue strength (p<.05). Conclusion. Both 1-piece and 2-piece conical abutment had high strength and fatigue resistance and this suggests long-term durability without mechanical complication. However, the 1-piece conical abutment was more stable than the 2-piece conical abutment in the strength and the fatigue resistance.

Keywords

References

  1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59
  2. Cochran DL. The scientific basis for and clinical experiences with Straumann implants including the m Dental Implant System: a consensus report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(Suppl):33-58 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011S1033.x
  3. Bahat O. Branemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:646-53
  4. Jemt T, Linden B, Lekholm U. Failures and complications in 127 consecutively placed fixed partial prostheses supported by Branemark implants: from prosthetic treatment to first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:40-4
  5. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Grondahl K. 3-year follow up study of early single implant restorations ad modum Branemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:340-9
  6. Scheller H, Urgell JP, Ku1tje C, Klineberg 1, Goldberg Pv, Stevenson-Moore P, et al. A 5-year multicenter study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:212-8
  7. Jemt T, Pettersson P. A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment. J Dent 1993;21:203-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90127-C
  8. Glantz PO, Rangert B, Svwnsson A, Stafford GD, Arnvidarson B, Randow K, Linden U, Hu1ten J. On clinical loading of osseointegrated implants. A methodological and clincal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:99-105 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040206.x
  9. 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
  10. 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;8:290-98 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x
  11. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of a I-piece and 2-piece conical abutment joint in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11:458-64 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011005458.x
  12. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/ abutment joint designs. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2002;88: 604-10 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129384
  13. Cehreli MC, Aka K, iplikioglu H, Sahin S. Dynamic fatigue resistance of implant-abutment junction in an internally notched morse-taper oral implant: influence of abutment design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:459-65 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01023.x
  14. Mericske-Stern R, Zarb GA. In vivo measurements of some functional aspect with mandibular fixed prostheses supported implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:153-61 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070209.x