ABSTRACT
Objectives: We compared the loads at which the implant holders from Astra Tech (AST) (AstraOsseoSpeed) and Osseotite Certain failed under static compression after experiencing fatigue, as well as the gap that resulted from dynamic loading between the implant-holder complexes. Materials and Method: The ISO 14801 recommendation served as the foundation for the test protocol. Each brand's five implant-implant holder assemblies underwent dynamic loading. A load of 200 N was applied at a stress frequency of 12 Hz and a cycle rate of 5105. (Eden Prairie, MN, USA). Using scanning electron microscopy (S3700N, HITACHI, Japan), the gap (m) at the interface was measured post-fatigue. Static loading was then used to determine the highest load (N) after the point of failure. Controls included definitive abutment-implant complexes. Statistics were used to analyze the data. Result: The Osseotite Certain group showed a slight trend toward greater resistance, but there was no diversity among the two implant holder groups (P 0.05). AST (AstraOsseoSpeed) implants had a larger interface gap, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: With respect to greatest compression load or the interface gap following dynamic loading, there were no discernible differences between the two experimental groups.
