The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of CAD/CAM abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal type implant after cyclic loading: Axial displacement, removal torque, and tensile removal force

  • Yi, Yuseung (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital & Dental Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital & Dental Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital & Dental Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital & Dental Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2019.02.22
  • Accepted : 2019.12.11
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal connection type implants after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted with internal type implants of two different manufacturers (Group Os, De). Fourteen assemblies were prepared for each manufacturer group and divided into 2 groups (n=7): prefabricated abutments (Os-P, De-P) and CAD/CAM abutments (Os-C, De-C). The amount of axial displacement and the removal torque values (RTVs) were measured before and after cyclic loading (106 cycles, 3 Hz with 150 N), and the tensile removal force to dislodge the abutments was measured after cyclic loading. A repeated measures ANOVA and a pattern analysis based on the logarithmic regression model were conducted to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the axial displacement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney test was conducted for comparison of RTV reduction% and tensile removal forces. RESULTS. There was no significant difference between CAD/CAM abutments and prefabricated abutments in axial displacement and tensile removal force; however, significantly greater RTV reduction% after cyclic loading was observed in CAD/CAM abutments. The correlation among the axial displacement, the RTV, and the tensile removal force was not significant. CONCLUSION. The use of CAD/CAM abutment did not significantly affect the amount of axial displacement and tensile removal force, but presented a significantly greater removal torque reduction% than prefabricated abutments. The connection stability due to the friction at the abutment-implant interface of CAD/CAM abutments may not be different from prefabricated abutment.

Keywords

References

  1. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26.
  2. Rack T, Zabler S, Rack A, Riesemeier H, Nelson K. An in vitro pilot study of abutment stability during loading in new and fatigue-loaded conical dental implants using synchrotronbased radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:44-50. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2748
  3. Gehrke SA, Pereira Fde A. Changes in the abutment-implant interface in Morse taper implant connections after mechanical cycling: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:791-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3113
  4. Bozkaya D, Muftu S. Mechanics of the tapered interference fit in dental implants. J Biomech 2003;36:1649-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00177-5
  5. Seol HW, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK, Kim SK. Axial displacement of external and internal implant-abutment connection evaluated by linear mixed model analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1387-99. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3857
  6. 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
  7. Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: biomechanical study of flat top versus conical. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:33-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00104.x
  8. Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:67-73. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0067:TRBIPA>2.3.CO;2
  9. Gil FJ, Herrero-Climent M, Lazaro P, Rios JV. Implantabutment connections: influence of the design on the microgap and their fatigue and fracture behavior of dental implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2014;25:1825-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5211-7
  10. Sumi T, Braian M, Shimada A, Shibata N, Takeshita K, Vandeweghe S, Coelho PG, Wennerberg A, Jimbo R. Characteristics of implant-CAD/CAM abutment connections of two different internal connection systems. J Oral Rehabil 2012;39:391-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02273.x
  11. Lee JH, Park JM, Park EJ, Koak JY, Kim SK, Heo SJ. Comparison of customized abutments made from titanium and a machinable precious alloy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:92-100. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4102
  12. Park JM, Baek CH, Heo SJ, Kim SK, Koak JY, Kim SK, Belser UC. An in vitro evaluation of the loosening of different interchangeable abutments in internal-connection-type implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:350-5. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5295
  13. Widmalm SE, Ericsson SG. Maximal bite force with centric and eccentric load. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9:445-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1982.tb01034.x
  14. Richter EJ. In vivo vertical forces on implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:99-108.
  15. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Gebhard R, Handel G. Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of allceramic fixed-partial dentures. Dent Mater 2006;22:176-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.024
  16. Delben JA, Gomes EA, Barao VA, Assuncao WG. Evaluation of the effect of retightening and mechanical cycling on preload maintenance of retention screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:251-6.
  17. Cerutti-Kopplin D, Rodrigues Neto DJ, Lins do Valle A, Pereira JR. Influence of reverse torque values in abutments with or without internal hexagon indexes. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:824-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.004
  18. de Oliveira Silva TS, Mendes Alencar SM, da Silva Valente V, de Moura CDVS. Effect of internal hexagonal index on removal torque and tensile removal force of different Morse taper connection abutments. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:621-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.024
  19. Winkler S, Ring K, Ring JD, Boberick KG. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: overview. J Oral Implantol 2003;29:242-5. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0242:ISMATS>2.3.CO;2
  20. Jorge JR, Barao VA, Delben JA, Assuncao WG. The role of implant/abutment system on torque maintenance of retention screws and vertical misfit of implant-supported crowns before and after mechanical cycling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:415-22. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2727
  21. Delben JA, Gomes EA, Barao VA, Assuncao WG. Evaluation of the effect of retightening and mechanical cycling on preload maintenance of retention screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:251-6.
  22. Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Garcia IR Jr. Effect of unilateral misfit on preload of retention screws of implant-supported prostheses submitted to mechanical cycling. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:12-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2010.05.002
  23. Jo JY, Yang DS, Huh JB, Heo JC, Yun MJ, Jeong CM. Influence of abutment materials on the implant-abutment joint stability in internal conical connection type implant systems. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:491-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.6.491
  24. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Nelson EW, Tietge JD. Torque required to loosen single-tooth implant abutment screws before and after simulated function. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:435-9.
  25. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Sadler JP, McKay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:270-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9
  26. Theoharidou A, Petridis HP, Tzannas K, Garefis P. Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:681-90.
  27. Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA. Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:592-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90443-X
  28. Coelho AL, Suzuki M, Dibart S, DA Silva N, Coelho PG. Cross-sectional analysis of the implant-abutment interface. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:508-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01714.x
  29. Bernardes SR, da Gloria Chiarello de Mattos M, Hobkirk J, Ribeiro RF. Loss of preload in screwed implant joints as a function of time and tightening/untightening sequences. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:89-96. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3344
  30. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115251
  31. Ricciardi Coppedê A, de Mattos Mda G, Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF. Effect of repeated torque/mechanical loading cycles on two different abutment types in implants with internal tapered connections: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:624-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01690.x

Cited by

  1. Screw stability of CAD‐CAM titanium and zirconia abutments on different implants: An in vitro study vol.23, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13001
  2. Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Chairside CAD/CAM Restorations Fabricated Using a Standardization Method vol.14, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14113115