Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14347/kadt.2010.32.4.317

Differences in retention of the reduction direction depending on dimensions and design CAD/CAM zirconia abutment for implant  

Nam, Taeg-Mo (Dental Laboratory of Kippum)
Kim, Han-Gon (Department of Sociology, Yeungnam University)
Kim, Byung-Sik (Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Daegu Polytechnic College)
Lim, Si-Duk (Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Daegu Polytechnic College)
Publication Information
Journal of Technologic Dentistry / v.32, no.4, 2010 , pp. 317-325 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to make some basic materials to find retention force difference based on the total height of CAD/CAM zirconia abutment used for implant, retention force difference based on how to regulate the height of the abutment, retention force difference based on the size and retention force difference based on the design group. Methods: The retention force was measured by being pulled at the speed of 1mm/min after being combined with zirconia block and abutment using Temp-BOND of Kerr. The experiment was done at the research lab of OSTEM in Busan by useing UNIVERSAL TESTING MACHINE on March 3rd, 2010. Results: After analysing the total height and the retention force, p-value had minor difference by 0.01 statistically. Namely, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm had the retention force difference and we could see retention force difference on 3mm and 5mm at the post test. After analyzing how to regulate the height and retention force, p-value had minor difference by 0.000 statistically. Namely, 1mm and 2mm had the retention difference and we could see that 1mm and 2mm with the total height had retention difference. After analyzing the retention force based on the size, p-value had minor retention force difference by 0.000 statistically. Namely, 7 different size had retention force difference and we could see the size 21.9mm, 32.9mm, 32.9mm, 38.4mm, 48.9mm and 54.9mm had retention force difference. Conclusion: Namely 9 different design group had retention difference and we could see that 9 design group with 5.6.7.8 design group and 9 design group with 1.2.3.4. design group had retention force.
Keywords
abutment; CAD/CAM; Implant; zirconia;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Pilathadka S. Vahalova D. Vosahlo T. The zirconia; a new dental ceramic material. Pargue medical report, 108, 5-12, 2008.
2 Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrassi A. Bacterial colonozation ceramic surface; an vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 17, 793-8, 2002.
3 Prestipino V, Ingber A. Esthtic high stregth implant abutment, Part II. J. Esthe Dent, 5, 63-68, 1993.   DOI
4 Boudris P, Shoghikian E, Morin E, Huntnik P. Esthetic option for implant supprted single tooth restoration. J Can Dent Assoc, 67, 508-14, 2001.
5 Ichikawa Y, Akagawa Y, Nikai H, Tsuru H. Tissue compatibility and stability of a new zirconia ceramic in vivo. J Prosthet Dent, 68, 322-6, 1992.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Kent DK, Kosa S, Froeschle ML.Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthod, 6, 193-196, 1997.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Maxwell A, Blank L, Pelleu JG. Effect of crown preparation height on the retention and resistance of gold castings. Gen Dent, 38, 200-202, 1990.
8 Prestipino V, Ingber A. Esthetic high stregth implant abutment, Part I. J Esthe Dent, 3, 29-36, 1993.
9 Garvie RC, Hannink RH. Ceramic steel Nature. 258, 703-4, 1975.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Bae KH, Han JS, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM. Biological stability of zirconia/alumina composite ceramic implant abutment. Kor Perio Assoc, 36, 555-65, 2006.   과학기술학회마을
11 Ebert A, Hedderich J, Kern M. Retention of zirconia ceramic coping bonded to titanium abutment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 22, 921-7, 2007.