Implants with original and non-original abutment connections.

AIM To test in vitro the mechanical resistance, rotational misfit and failure mode of three original implant-abutment connections and to compare them to two connections between non-original abutments connected to one of the original implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS Three different implants with small diameters (3.3 mm for Straumann Roxolid, 3.5 mm for Nobel Biocare Replace and Astra Tech Osseospeed TX) were connected with individualized titanium abutments. Twelve implants from each system were connected to their original abutments (Straumann CARES, Nobel Biocare Procera, Astra Tech Atlantis). Twenty-four Roxolid implants were connected with non-original abutments using CAD/CAM procedures from the other two manufacturers (12 Nobel Biocare Procera and 12 Astra Tech Atlantis). For the critical bending test, a Zwick/Roell 1475 machine and the Xpert Zwick/Roell software were used. RESULTS The rotational misfit varied when comparing the different interfaces. The use of non-original grade V titanium abutments on Roxolid implants increased the force needed for deformation. The fracture mode was different with one of the original connections. CONCLUSIONS Non-original abutments differ in design of the connecting surfaces and material and demonstrate higher rotational misfit. These differences may result in unexpected failure modes.

[1]  Tiago de Morais Alves da Cunha,et al.  Comparison of fit accuracy between Procera® custom abutments and three implant systems. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[2]  Ameen Khraisat,et al.  Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  S A Aquilino,et al.  Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  U. Brägger,et al.  Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  H. Petridis,et al.  Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: a systematic review. , 2008, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[6]  E. Romeo,et al.  A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles--results from a 1-year observation period. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[7]  D L Dixon,et al.  Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. , 1995, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  K. Tan,et al.  Critical bending moment of four implant-abutment interface designs. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  Marianella Sierraalta,et al.  Evaluation of the precision of fit between the Procera custom abutment and various implant systems. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  D. Cochran,et al.  Tissue integration of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a comparative histologic and radiographic study in the canine. , 2011, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  R. Mericske-Stern,et al.  Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  M. Dard,et al.  Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[13]  U. Brägger,et al.  A pilot study to evaluate the success and survival rate of titanium-zirconium implants in partially edentulous patients: results after 24 months of follow-up. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  R. Tomlinson,et al.  The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  S. Steinemann Titanium--the material of choice? , 1998, Periodontology 2000.