The implant-abutment interface of alumina and zirconia abutments.

BACKGROUND Although ceramic and titanium abutments are widely used in clinical practice, the mechanical characterization of the implant-abutment interface for ceramic abutments has not been evaluated after the dynamic loading. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess the implant-abutment interface after the dynamic loading of titanium, alumina, and zirconia abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifteen aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and titanium abutments were manufactured by the Procera System (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) and were connected to Ø 3.75 x 13-mm regular platform implants (MK III, Nobel Biocare AB) secured in a 30 degrees inclined plane. A mechanical testing machine applied compressive dynamic loading between 20 and 200 N at 1 Hz on a standard contact area of copings cemented on abutments for 47.250 cycles. The measurements of microgaps at the implant-abutment interface from the labial, palatinal, mesial, and distal surfaces of each specimen were undertaken by scanning electron microscope analyses prior to and after the experiments. The data of the microgaps before and after the dynamic loading were statistically assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis variance analysis (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS Coping fracture, abutment fracture, or abutment screw loosening or fracture was not detected in any specimen during the entire test period. After the dynamic loading, the titanium abutment control group revealed an increased microgap (3.47 microm) than zirconia (1.45 microm) and alumina (1.82 microm) groups at the palatinal site (p < .05). The mean measurement values at different measurement sites of specimens within and between each abutment group were similar (p > .05). CONCLUSION Owing to their comparable microgap values at the implant-abutment interface after the dynamic loading, ceramic abutments can withstand functional forces like conventional titanium abutments.

[1]  P. Glantz,et al.  The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. , 1998, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  D. Ch,et al.  Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of the interfacial fit of interchanged components of four dental implant systems. , 1997 .

[3]  D. Brunette,et al.  The attachment mechanism of epithelial cells to titanium in vitro. , 1981, Journal of periodontal research.

[4]  A. Scarano,et al.  Tissue reactions, fluids, and bacterial infiltration in implants retrieved at autopsy: a case report. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  T Jemt,et al.  Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. , 1992, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[6]  B Rangert,et al.  Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. , 1995, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

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

[8]  U. Belser,et al.  Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. , 2001, Journal of periodontology.

[10]  C. Stanford,et al.  Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface: joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  Marianella Sierraalta,et al.  Evolution and use of aluminum oxide single-tooth implant abutments: a short review and presentation of two cases. , 2002, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[12]  F Houston,et al.  The fit of cast and premachined implant abutments. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  U. Brodbeck.  The ZiReal Post: A new ceramic implant abutment. , 2003, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[14]  D L Dixon,et al.  Torque required to loosen single-tooth implant abutment screws before and after simulated function. , 1993, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[15]  Phophi Kamposiora,et al.  Three-dimensional computerized stress analysis of commercially pure titanium and yttrium-partially stabilized zirconia implants. , 2002, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[16]  S. Witkowski,et al.  Strength and mode of failure of single implant all-ceramic abutment restorations under static load. , 1995, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[17]  A. Ingber,et al.  Esthetic high-strength implant abutments. Part II. , 1993, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[18]  D Buser,et al.  Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. , 2001, Journal of periodontology.

[19]  C M Cobb,et al.  Loss of crestal bone around dental implants: a retrospective study. , 1998, Implant dentistry.

[20]  E. Richter,et al.  Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  C. Cobb,et al.  Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: a retrospective analysis of failed implants. , 2000, Quintessence international.

[22]  H. Iplikçioğlu,et al.  The influence of the location of load transfer on strains around implants supporting four unit cement-retained fixed prostheses: in vitro evaluation of axial versus off-set loading. , 2002, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[23]  B R Lang,et al.  Examination of the implant-abutment interface after fatigue testing. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.