The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Axial wall thickness of zirconia abutment in anterior region

전치부 지르코니아 지대주의 축벽 두께

  • Moon, Seung-Jin (School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Heo, Yu-Ri (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Lee, Gyeong-Je (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 문승진 (조선대학교 치의학대학원) ;
  • 허유리 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이경제 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김희중 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2015.09.02
  • Accepted : 2015.10.13
  • Published : 2015.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proper axial thickness of zirconia abutment applied to implant in the anterior region. Materials and methods: Zirconia abutments were prepared at different axial wall thickness by processing pre-sintered zirconia blocks via CAD/CAM to obtain equal specimens. The abutments were each produced with a thickness of 0.5 mm (Group 1), 0.8 mm (Group 2), 1.2 mm (Group 3), or 1.5 mm (Group 4). The implant used in this study was a external connection type one (US, Osstem, Pussan, Korea) product and the zirconia abutment was prepared via replication of a cemented abutment. The crowns were prepared via CAM/CAM with a thickness of 1.5 mm and were cemented to the abutments using $RelyX^{TM}$ UniCem cement. A universal testing machine was used to apply load at 30 degrees and measure fracture strength of the zirconia abutment. Results: Fracture strength of the abutments for Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 were $236.00{\pm}67.55N$, $599.00{\pm}15.80N$, $588.20{\pm}33.18N$, and $97.83{\pm}98.13N$, respectively. Group 1 showed a significantly lower value, as compared to the other groups (independent Mann-Whitney U-test. P<.05). No significant differences were detected among Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 (independent Mann-Whitney U-test. P>.05). Conclusion: Zirconia abutment requires optimal thickness for fracture resistance. Within the limitation of this study, > 0.8 mm thickness is recommended for zirconia abutment in anterior implants.

목적: 이 실험의 목적은 전치부 임플란트에 적용되는 지르코니아 지대주의 적절한 축벽의 두께를 평가하는 것이었다. 재료 및 방법: 시편들은 4가지의 서로 다른 두께로 제작되었으며, 일정하게 제작하고자 CAD/CAM 시스템을 이용하여 소결전 지르코니아 블록을 가공한 후 소결하였다. 가공된 시편들은 두께에 따라 Group 1 (0.5 mm), Group 2 (0.8 mm), Group 3 (1.0 mm), Group 4 (1.2 mm)의 4가지 그룹으로 분류되었다. 임플란트 시스템은 외부연결형(US, Osstem, Pussan, Korea) 을 이용하였다. 지대주 시편들은 시멘트 유지형 지대주를 복제하여 제작되었다. 크라운은 1.5 mm 의 두께로 CAD/CAM을 이용하여 제작되었다. 제작된 지대주 시편들을 임플란트에 고정시킨 후 레진시멘트(RelyXTM UniCem, 3M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany)를 이용하여 크라운을 합착하였다. 지르코니아 지대주의 파절을 측정하기 위해 만능시험기로 임플란트 장축에 30도의 각도로 힘을 가하였다. 결과: Group 1, Group 2, Group 3와 Group 4의 파절강도는 각각 $236.00{\pm}67.55N$, $599.00{\pm}15.80N$, $588.20{\pm}33.18N$, $97.83{\pm}98.13N$이었다. Group 1이 다른 그룹에 비해 통계학적으로 유의성 있게 낮은 강도를 보여주었다(independent Mann-Whitney U-test, P<.05). 나머지 Group 2, Group 3와 Group 4는 서로 통계학적으로 유의성을 보여주지 않았다(independent Mann-Whitney U-test, P>.05). 결론: 지르코니아 지대주는 파절에 저항하기 위해 적절한 두께를 필요로 한다. 이 실험의 결과로 판단할 때, 지르코니아 지대주가 전치부 임플란트에 적용되기 위해서는 0.8 mm 이상의 두께를 가져야 된다고 추천된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Andersson B, Scharer P, Simion M, Bergstrom C. Ceramic implant abutments used for short-span fixed partial dentures: a prospective 2-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:318-24.
  3. Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:635-41.
  4. 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.
  5. Aramouni P, Zebouni E, Tashkandi E, Dib S, Salameh Z, Almas K. Fracture resistance and failure location of zirconium and metallic implant abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:41-8.
  6. Att W, Kurun S, Gerds T, Strub JR. Fracture resistance of singletooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:111-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.12.003
  7. Yildirim M, Edelhoff D, Hanisch O, Spiekermann H. Ceramic abutments--a new era in achieving optimal esthetics in implant dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:81-91.
  8. Bressan E1, Paniz G, Lops D, Corazza B, Romeo E, Favero G. Influence of abutment material on the gingival color of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:631-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02008.x
  9. 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
  10. Rasperini G, Maglione M, Cocconcelli P, Simion M. In vivo early plaque formation on pure titanium and ceramic abutments: a comparative microbiological and SEM analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:357-64. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.090601.x
  11. Prestipino V, Ingber A. Esthetic high-strength implant abutments. Part II. J Esthet Dent 1993;5:63-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1993.tb00750.x
  12. Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Scharer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:285-90.
  13. Reich S1, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The effect of finish line preparation and layer thickness on the failure load and fractography of $ZrO_2$ copings. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:369-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60085-2
  14. Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007;35:819-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.008
  15. 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
  16. Yildirim M, Fischer H, Marx R, Edelhoff D. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:325-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00514-6
  17. 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
  18. Gehrke P, Dhom G, Brunner J, Wolf D, Degidi M, Piattelli A. Zirconium implant abutments: fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening. Quintessence Int 2006;37:19-26.
  19. Yang B1, Lange-Jansen HC, Scharnberg M, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Adelung R, Kern M. Influence of saliva contamination on zirconia ceramic bonding. Dent Mater 2008;24:508-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.04.013
  20. Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, DeLong R, Pintado MR. The wear of a posterior composite in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 1986;2:235-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(86)80034-3

Cited by

  1. Effects of abutment angulation and type of connection on the fracture strength of zirconia abutments vol.55, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.1.9