Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load.
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Apr; 109(4):255-63.JP

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although various zirconia abutments have been introduced, insufficient data exist regarding the maximum load capacity of internal tri-channel connection zirconia implant abutments with various implant-abutment interfaces.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the maximum load capacity of 3 different types of internal tri-channel connection zirconia abutments and to assess their mode of failure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study investigated 3 groups (n=20) of zirconia implant abutments with different implant-abutment interfaces. Group AllZr consisted entirely of zirconia (Aadva CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutment), group FrZr of a titanium insert friction-fitted to the zirconia abutment component (NobelProcera Abutment Zirconia), and group BondZr of a titanium insert bonded to the zirconia abutment component (Lava Zirconia abutment). All the abutments were thermal cycled for 20 000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Sixty test implants made of titanium (Dummy NobelReplace) were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and 60 zirconia copings (Lava Zirconia) with a uniform thickness of 2.0 mm were fabricated and bonded to the abutments. A universal testing machine was used to statically load all the specimens at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum load was recorded and used as the failure load. The fractured specimens were collected and representative specimens were studied with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons with the Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) maximum load capacity was 484.6 (56.6) N for NobelProcera, 503.9 (46.3) N for Aadva, and 729.2 (35.9) N for Lava abutments. The maximum load capacity of Lava abutments was significantly higher than that of Aadva or NobelProcera (P< 05). No significant difference between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments was noted. The mode of failure among the Aadva, NobelProcera, and Lava abutments was different.

CONCLUSIONS

With standard diameter internal tri-channel connection implants, the maximum load capacity of the Lava abutment was significantly higher than that of the Aadva or NobelProcera abutment. No significant difference in maximum load capacity was noted between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments. However, the fracture behavior of all 3 abutments was different.

Links

Publisher Full Text
Aggregator Full Text
Aggregator Full Text

Authors+Show Affiliations

Kim JS
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Georgia Regents University College of Dental Medicine, Augusta, Ga 30912, USA. jkim1@gru.edu
Raigrodski AJ
No affiliation info available
Flinn BD
No affiliation info available
Rubenstein JE
No affiliation info available
Chung KH
No affiliation info available
Mancl LA
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Computer-Aided DesignDental AbutmentsDental BondingDental Implant-Abutment DesignDental Implants, Single-ToothDental MaterialsDental Prosthesis DesignDental Restoration FailureDental Stress AnalysisFrictionHumansMaterials TestingMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningStress, MechanicalSurface PropertiesTemperatureTitaniumZirconium

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23566607

Citation

Kim, Jae Seon, et al. "In Vitro Assessment of Three Types of Zirconia Implant Abutments Under Static Load." The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 109, no. 4, 2013, pp. 255-63.
Kim JS, Raigrodski AJ, Flinn BD, et al. In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(4):255-63.
Kim, J. S., Raigrodski, A. J., Flinn, B. D., Rubenstein, J. E., Chung, K. H., & Mancl, L. A. (2013). In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 109(4), 255-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2
Kim JS, et al. In Vitro Assessment of Three Types of Zirconia Implant Abutments Under Static Load. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(4):255-63. PubMed PMID: 23566607.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. AU - Kim,Jae Seon, AU - Raigrodski,Ariel J, AU - Flinn,Brian D, AU - Rubenstein,Jeffrey E, AU - Chung,Kwok-Hung, AU - Mancl,Lloyd A, PY - 2013/4/10/entrez PY - 2013/4/10/pubmed PY - 2013/9/28/medline SP - 255 EP - 63 JF - The Journal of prosthetic dentistry JO - J Prosthet Dent VL - 109 IS - 4 N2 - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although various zirconia abutments have been introduced, insufficient data exist regarding the maximum load capacity of internal tri-channel connection zirconia implant abutments with various implant-abutment interfaces. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the maximum load capacity of 3 different types of internal tri-channel connection zirconia abutments and to assess their mode of failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study investigated 3 groups (n=20) of zirconia implant abutments with different implant-abutment interfaces. Group AllZr consisted entirely of zirconia (Aadva CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutment), group FrZr of a titanium insert friction-fitted to the zirconia abutment component (NobelProcera Abutment Zirconia), and group BondZr of a titanium insert bonded to the zirconia abutment component (Lava Zirconia abutment). All the abutments were thermal cycled for 20 000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Sixty test implants made of titanium (Dummy NobelReplace) were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and 60 zirconia copings (Lava Zirconia) with a uniform thickness of 2.0 mm were fabricated and bonded to the abutments. A universal testing machine was used to statically load all the specimens at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum load was recorded and used as the failure load. The fractured specimens were collected and representative specimens were studied with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons with the Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean (SD) maximum load capacity was 484.6 (56.6) N for NobelProcera, 503.9 (46.3) N for Aadva, and 729.2 (35.9) N for Lava abutments. The maximum load capacity of Lava abutments was significantly higher than that of Aadva or NobelProcera (P< 05). No significant difference between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments was noted. The mode of failure among the Aadva, NobelProcera, and Lava abutments was different. CONCLUSIONS: With standard diameter internal tri-channel connection implants, the maximum load capacity of the Lava abutment was significantly higher than that of the Aadva or NobelProcera abutment. No significant difference in maximum load capacity was noted between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments. However, the fracture behavior of all 3 abutments was different. SN - 1097-6841 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23566607/In_vitro_assessment_of_three_types_of_zirconia_implant_abutments_under_static_load_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022-3913(13)60054-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -