구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제27권2호
  • /
  • Pages.185-195
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지

하중 후 임프란트와 지르코니아 지대주 사이의 표면 변화

Surface Changes between Implant and Zircoina Abutment after Loading

  • 김문수 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 조영범 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김희중 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Kim, Moon-Soo (Department of prosthodontics, college of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Cho, Young-Bum (Department of prosthodontics, college of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of prosthodontics, college of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 투고 : 2011.03.03
  • 심사 : 2011.06.25
  • 발행 : 2011.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 외부연결방식(external type)의 임프란트에서 기존의 타이타늄 지대주와 지르코니아 지대주를 각각의 임플란트와 연결하여 하중을 가한 후 임플란트 외부육각기둥(external hexgon)부분 및 platform 표면변화를 FESEM 상으로 관찰하고, 임프란트와 타이타늄 지대주 및 지르코니아 지대주의 Viker's 경도를 측정하였다. 1. 임프란트, 타이타늄 지대주 및 지르코니아 지대주의 Viker's 경도는 각각 평균 $309.80{\pm}11.78$ HV, $318.40{\pm}11.82$ HV, $1495.30{\pm}16.21$ HV였다. 임프란트와 타이타늄 지대주 사이에는 통계학적으로 유의성이 존재하지 않았지만(P>0.05, Anova), 임프란트와 지르코니아 사이에는 통계학적으로 유의성이 관찰되었다(P<0.05, Anova). 2. 10,000번 하중을 가한 후 임플란트 표면변화 관찰에서 타이타늄 지대주 그룹과 지르코니아 지대주 그룹 모두에서 마모가 관찰 되었으며, 지르코니아 지대주에서 보다 현저한 마모양상을 나타내었다. 본 연구에서 표면경도의 차이로 인하여 타이타늄 지대주를 사용할 때보다 지르코니아 지대주를 사용한 경우 임플란트의 external hexagon부분 및 플랫폼의 마모도가 현저하였다.

In this study, titanium abutments and zirconia abutments were connected to each implant in external type implants. After that they were loaded 10000 times with 20Kg as occlusal force. The surface changes of external hexgon part and platform were observed in FESEM image. Viker's hardness of an implant, a titanium abutment and a zirconia abutment were measured respectively. 1. Viker's hardness of an implants, a titanium abutment and a zirconia abutment was $309.80{\pm}11.78$ HV, $318.40{\pm}11.82$ HV, and $1495.30{\pm}16.21$ HV respectively. There was no statistical significance between an implant and a titanium abutment (P>0.05, Anova). However, there was statistical significance between an implant and a zirconia abutment(P<0.05, Anova). 2. The wear was observed at the joint of implant and abutment in both a titanium abutment group and a zirconia abutment group after loading 10,000 times. The zirconia abutment showed more remarkable wear than the titanium one. In conclusion, the wear of external hexagon and platform was much more notable in a zirconia abutment group than a titanium one. It was suggested that it could result from the difference of surface hardness between titanium and zirconia. The wear of junction between an implant and a zirconia abutment becomes more severe, the connection of an implant and an abutment is much more unfit. This is likely to cause loosening and fracture of the abutment screw. so it is considered that the possibility of implant supra-structure failure can be increased.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Gomes AL, Montero J. Zirconia implant abutments: A review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010: 1.
  2. Yuzugullu B, Avci M. The implant-abutment interface of alumina and zirconia abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10(2):113-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00071.x
  3. Brodbeck U. The ZiReal Post: A new ceramic implant abutment. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003;15(1): 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2003.tb00278.x
  4. Adatia ND, Bayne SC, Cooper LF, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of yttria-stabilized zirconia dental implant abutments. J Prosthodont 2009;18(1):17-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00378.x
  5. Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH. Randomized-controlled clinical trial of cual mized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single- tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(8):802-808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01717.x
  6. Cho HW, Dong JK, Jin TH, Oh SC, Lee HH, Lee JW. A study on the fracture strength of implant-supported restorations using milled ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prothodont 2002;15:9-13.
  7. Sailer I, Sailer T, Stawarczyk B, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH. In vitro study of the influence of the type of connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 (5):850-858.
  8. Scherrer SS, Kelly JR, Quinn GD, Xu K. Fracture toughness(KIc) of a dental porcelain determined by fractographic analysis. Dent Mater 1999;15:342-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00055-X
  9. Yildirim M,Fischer H,Marx R, Edelhoff D. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prothet Dent 2003;90:325-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00514-6
  10. Nothdurft FP, Doppler KE, Erdelt KJ, Knauber AW, Pospiech PR. Fracture behavior of straight or angulated zirconia implant abutments supporting anterior single crowns. Clin Oral Investig 2010:19.
  11. Lee MS, Suh KW, Ryu JJ. Screw Joint Stability under Cyclic Loading of Zirconia Implant Abutments. J Korea Aca Prosthodont 2009;47:164-173. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.164
  12. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int J Prothodont 1995;8: 162-178.
  13. Brodbeck U. The ZiReal Post: A new ceramic implant abutment. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003;15(1): 10-23 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2003.tb00278.x
  14. Nguyen HQ, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue performance of implant-ceramic abutment combinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(4): 636-646.