Internal and marginal fit and fracture strength of narrow diameter dental implant-abutment assembly

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the internal and vertical marginal fit of metallic copings to abutments and the fracture strength of different narrow diameter dental implant/abutments, either submitted to thermomechanical cycling or not. Sixty-four implant/abutments (n=16) were divided into 4 groups according to diameter and abutment type: G3.5-UAC (morse taper implant Ø3.5mm + universal abutment with beveled chamfer finish); G2.9-UAS (morse taper implant Ø2.9mm + universal abutment with shoulder finish); G2.8-AA (morse taper friction implant Ø2.8mm + anatomical abutment) and G2.5-HP (one-piece implant Ø2.5mm with indexed hexagonal platform). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=8): submitted and not submitted to thermomechanical cycling (TMC). To assess internal and vertical marginal fit of metallic copings, the assemblies were scanned using microtomography (micro-CT) (n=5). The samples were subjected to the compressive strength test on a universal test machine. Group G3.5-UAC showed the highest marginal misfit regardless of TMC (p<0.05). All other groups were similar after TMC. Group G2.8-AA showed the lowest internal misfit both with and without TMC (p<0.05). Group G2.8-AA showed the highest fracture strength, similar only to G2.5-HP without TMC and G3.5-UAC with TMC. The type of abutment affects the internal and marginal fit of metallic copings and the anatomical abutment led to the best internal and marginal coping fit. The narrow diameter dental implant/abutments differ in terms of fracture strength, the strongest assembly was that composed by implant of type V grade titanium without internal threads (friction implant).

Resumo O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a adaptação marginal e interna de cópings metálicos em pilares sobre implantes, e a resistência a fratura de diferentes conjuntos de implantes/pilares de diâmetro reduzido, submetidos à ciclagem termomecânica ou não. Sessenta e quatro implantes/pilares (n=16) foram divididos em 04 grupos de acordo com o tipo de pilar e diâmetro do implante: G3.5-UAC (implante cone morse Ø3.5mm + munhão universal com término em chanfro); G2.9-UAS (implante cone morse Ø2.9mm + munhão universal com término em ombro); G2.8-AA (implante cone morse friccional Ø2.8mm + munhão anatômico); e G2.5-HP (implante de corpo único de Ø2.5mm com plataforma hexagonal indexada). Cada grupo foi dividio em dois subgrupos (n=8): submetidos ou não à ciclagem termomecânica (TMC). As amostras foram escaneadas por microtomografia (micro-CT) para avaliar a adaptação interna e marginal vertical dos copings metálicos. As amostras foram submetidas à resistência à compressão em uma maquina de ensaios universal. O grupo G3.5-UAC apresentou os maiores valores de desadaptação marginal independentemente da TMC (p<0,05). Todos os outros grupos foram similares entre si após TMC. O grupo G2.8-AA demonstrou o menor desajuste interno independentemente de TMC (p<0,05). O grupo G2.8-AA demonstrou a maior resistência à fratura, similar apenas ao grupo G2.5-HP sem TMC e G3.5-UAC com TMC. O tipo de pilar influencia a adaptação interna e marginal vertical de copings metálicos. O grupo do pilar anatômico (sem entalhes na superfície) levou à melhor adaptação, enquanto o grupo com plataforma expandida hexagonal e os grupos com munhão universal (com entalhes na superfície) proporcionaram os maiores desajustes (especialmente com termino em chanfro). Os implantes/pilares de diâmetro reduzido diferem em termos de resistencia à fratura, sendo que o conjunto mais resistente foi aquele composto por titânio tipo V e sem roscas internas (implante friccional).

Different fabrication techniques of implant-supported prostheses: microhardness and fracture strength

Aim: This study evaluated the mechanical behavior of implant-supported crowns obtained by different fabrication technique after thermomechanical cycling. Methods: Thirty-two external hexagon dental implants were divided into four groups (n=10): CC ­ conventional casting with torch; EI ­ electromagnetic induction casting; PL ­ plasma casting; and CAD-CAM ­ milling through computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing. Vickers microhardness of the specimens were made before and after the thermomechanical cycling, and then subjected to fracture load. Fracture pattern was evaluated. Results: No significant difference was observed comparing the microhardness before and after thermomechanical cycling. CAD-CAM group presented significant lower microhardness than the other groups. No significant statistical difference was showed on fracture load between the groups. The CAD-CAM and PL presented lower number of failure by plastic deformation. Conclusion: The manufacturing techniques affected the mechanical behavior and the failure pattern of implant-supported crowns tested