Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(03): 349-353
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700662
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of Implant Platform Connection and Abutment Material on Removal Torque and Implant Hexagon Plastic Deformation

Paulo Henrique de Souza Pereira
1   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil
,
Marina Amaral
1   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil
,
Kusai Baroudi
1   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil
,
Rafael Pino Vitti
1   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil
,
Mohammad Zakaria Nassani
2   Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, AlFarabi College of Dentistry and Nursing, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Laís Regiane da Silva-Concílio
1   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 December 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the plastic deformation of the hexagonal connection, and the removal torque of the implant-abutment joint of two dental implants combined with internal or external hexagonal connection implants after mechanical cycling.

Materials and Methods Twenty-four dental implants were used in the study. Half of the implants had internal hexagonal connections (IH; Titamax II Plus) and the other half had external hexagonal connections (EH; Titamax Ti Ex). Four groups of two types of dental implant abutments (titanium: Ti, UCLA II Plus and zirconia: Zr, fabricated by CAD/CAM; n = 6) were investigated. The abutments received a metallic crown and the settings were submitted to mechanical cycling (MC; 106 cycles, axial load, 120N). The connection surface area was measured by scanning electron microscope (SEM) images. The removal torque was evaluated and the plastic deformation of the hexagonal surface of the implant was measured by comparing the images before and after MC.

Statistical Analysis Paired-t test was used to analyze the data statistically at a significance level of α = 0.05.

Results The torque values decreased for all groups after MC, and the hexagonal surface area decreased due to plastic deformation for IH and EH associated with Zr abutments.

Conclusions Zirconia abutments showed the worst plastic deformation of the implant connection surface and torque loosening when associated with IH implant.

Keywords

internal hexagon implant - zirconia abutment - connection wear
 

  • References

  • 1 Ravald N, Dahlgren S, Teiwik A, Gröndahl K. Long-term evaluation of Astra Tech and Brånemark implants in patients treated with full-arch bridges. Results after 12-15 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 (10) 1144-1151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (01) 135-140
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sala L, Bascones-Martínez A, Carrillo-de-Albornoz A. Impact of abutment material on peri-implant soft tissue color. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21 (07) 2221-2233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Silva NR, Thompson VP, Valverde GB. et al. Comparative reliability analyses of zirconium oxide and lithium dissilicate restorations in vitro and in vivo. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142 (Suppl (02) 4S-9S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Magne P, Magne M, Jovanovic SA. An esthetic solution for single-implant restorations - type III porcelain veneer bonded to a screw-retained custom abutment: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99 (01) 2-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gautam C, Joyner J, Gautam A, Rao J, Vajtai R. Zirconia based dental ceramics: structure, mechanical properties, biocompatibility and applications. Dalton Trans 2016; 45 (48) 19194-19215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sui X, Wei H, Wang D. et al. Experimental research on the relationship between fit accuracy and fracture resistance of zirconia abutments. J Dent 2014; 42 (10) 1353-1359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ban S. Reliability and properties of core materials for all-ceramic dental restorations. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2008; 44: 3-21
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Elias CN, Fernandes DJ, Resende CR, Roestel J. Mechanical properties, surface morphology and stability of a modified commercially pure high strength titanium alloy for dental implants. Dent Mater 2015; 31 (02) e1-e13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chun KJ, Lee JY. Comparative study of mechanical properties of dental restorative materials and dental hard tissues in compressive loads. J Dent Biomech 2014; 5 DOI: 10.1177/1758736014555246.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yüzügüllü B, Avci M. The implant-abutment interface of alumina and zirconia abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10 (02) 113-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stimmelmayr M, Sagerer S, Erdelt K, Beuer F. In vitro fatigue and fracture strength testing of one-piece zirconia implant abutments and zirconia implant abutments connected to titanium cores. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28 (02) 488-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lopez-Suarez C, Gonzalo E, Pelaez J. Serrano B, Suarez MJ. Marginal vertical discrepancies of monolithic and veneered zirconia and metal-ceramic three-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29 (03) 256-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Prado AM, Pereira J, Silva FS. et al. Wear of Morse taper and external hexagon implant joints after abutment removal. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2017; 28 (05) 65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Carvalho MA, Sotto-Maior BS, Del Bel Cury AA, Pessanha Henriques GE. Effect of platform connection and abutment material on stress distribution in single anterior implant-supported restorations: a nonlinear 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (05) 1096-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zandparsa R, Albosefi A. An in vitro comparison of fracture load of zirconia custom abutments with internal connection and different angulations and thicknesses: part II. J Prosthodont 2016; 25 (02) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, Pouya MA, Mahmood F. The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: A finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9 (03) 311-318
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mohammed HH, Lee JH, Bae JM, Cho HW. Effect of abutment screw length and cyclic loading on removal torque in external and internal hex implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8 (01) 62-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cerutti-Kopplin D, Rodrigues Neto DJ, Lins do Valle A, Pereira JR. Influence of reverse torque values in abutments with or without internal hexagon indexes. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (04) 824-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gil FJ, Herrero-Climent M, Lázaro P, Rios JV. Implant-abutment connections: influence of the design on the microgap and their fatigue and fracture behavior of dental implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2014; 25 (07) 1825-1830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85 (06) 585-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fabbri G, Fradeani M, Dellificorelli G. De Lorenzi M, Zarone F, Sorrentino R. Clinical evaluation of the influence of connection type and restoration height on the reliability of zirconia abutments: a retrospective study on 965 abutments with a mean 6-year follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017; 37 (01) 19-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Baldassarri M, Hjerppe J, Romeo D, Fickl S, Thompson VP, Stappert CF. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (03) 537-543
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Pinheiro Tannure AL, Cunha AG, Borges Junior LA, da Silva Concílio LR, Claro Neves AC. Wear at the implant-abutment interface of zirconia abutments manufactured by three CAD/CAM systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (06) 1241-1250
    Google Scholar
  • 25 de Araújo GM, de França DG, Silva Neto JP, Barbosa GA. Passivity of conventional and CAD/CAM fabricated implant frameworks. Braz Dent J 2015; 26 (03) 277-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pereira LMS, Sordi MB, Magini RS. Calazans Duarte AR, M Souza JC. Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: an integrative review. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (04) 553-558
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Alsahhaf A, Spies BC, Vach K, Kohal RJ. Fracture resistance of zirconia-based implant abutments after artificial long-term aging. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017; 66: 224-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dhingra A, Weiner S, Luke AC, Ricci JL. Analysis of dimensional changes in the screw and the surface topography at the interface of a titanium screw and a zirconia abutment under cyclic loading: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28 (03) 661-669
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Elsayed A, Wille S, Al-Akhali M. Kern M. Effect of fatigue loading on the fracture strength and failure mode of lithium disilicate and zirconia implant abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (01) 20-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sailer I, Asgeirsson AG, Thoma DS. et al. Fracture strength of zirconia implant abutments on narrow diameter implants with internal and external implant abutment connections: A study on the titanium resin base concept. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (04) 411-423
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cavusoglu Y, Akça K, Gürbüz R, Cehreli MC. A pilot study of joint stability at the zirconium or titanium abutment/titanium implant interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (02) 338-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar