Next Article in Journal
Development of a Resistance Spot Welding Process Using Additive Manufacturing
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Roasting Temperature on Phase Transformation in Co-Reduction Roasting of Nickel Slag
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Metals
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/met10050556
metals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparing the Maximum Load Capacity and Modes of Failure of Original Equipment Manufactured and Aftermarket Titanium Abutments in Internal Hexagonal Implants

by
Yutsen Chang
1,
Yuling Wu
1,
Hungshyong Chen
2,
Minghsu Tsai
2,
Chiachen Chang
1 and
Aaron Yujen Wu
1,*
1
Department of Dentistry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan
2
Mechanical Engineering, Cheng Shiu University, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2020, 10(5), 556; https://doi.org/10.3390/met10050556
Submission received: 27 March 2020 / Revised: 17 April 2020 / Accepted: 22 April 2020 / Published: 25 April 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the maximum load capacity and modes of failure under static loading in three types of titanium abutments (n = 3) with different processes or manufacturers. The Pre-Ti group consists of prefabricated titanium abutments from original equipment manufacturers (OEM), the CAD-Ti group consists of OEM titanium abutments fabricated with computer-assisted design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technique, and the AM-Ti group is CAD/CAM titanium abutment made by aftermarket manufacturers. A full zirconia crown was fabricated and cemented to each abutment. An all-electric dynamic test instrument was used to place loading on the zirconia crown with a crosshead speed set at 1 mm/min. The mean maximum load capacity of both OEM titanium abutments was significantly higher than the aftermarket titanium abutments. All these three types of implant–abutment complexes exhibited similar modes of failure, which included deformation of the abutment and implant, fracture of the abutment and retentive screw.

1. Introduction

Although replacing a missing tooth with a dental implant is a predictable and frequently used treatment, implant-supported prosthesis has proven to be an effective method for oral reconstruction [1,2,3]. The long-term success of dental implants has been confirmed by several studies, with a 5-year survival rate of 94.5%, and a 10-year survival rate of 89.4% [4,5]. In the aesthetic area, the hue of the metal abutment may be visible through the surrounding soft tissue. However, due to its excellent biocompatibility and mechanical properties, titanium abutment is still often utilized in clinical practice [6,7]. Among the formulations of titanium alloys, titanium–aluminum–vanadium (Ti-6Al-4V) is the most widely used in dentistry due to its better physical and mechanical properties and it being more fatigue-resistant compared to commercially pure titanium [8,9].
In the past two decades, computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) have become an increasingly popular part of dentistry. In routine clinical practice, physicians use implants and its prosthetic components, including abutments and screws, from the same manufacturer, which is known as the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Sailer et al. [10] and Zembic et al. [11] investigated the survival and complication rates of CAD/CAM OEM zirconia and titanium abutments in a randomized-controlled clinical trial. All patients received regular platform (RP) Nobel Biocare implant therapy. A total of 20 Procera zirconia abutments and 20 Procera titanium abutments were used in the study. During a 36-month follow-up, all implants and abutments in both groups showed a 100% survival rate and no technical complications were seen in either group. A systematic review by Kapos et al. [12] also reported that the short- to medium-term survival rate of CAD/CAM OEM abutments was 100%. They concluded that CAD/CAM technology can provide results comparable to conventional techniques in terms of implant survival, prosthesis survival, and technical and biologic complications.
With the rapid development of CAD/CAM technology in the dental field, aftermarket manufacturers have begun to introduce their prosthetic components. In daily practice, physicians, dental technicians, or patients may choose the aftermarket abutments for financial concerns. These aftermarket manufacturers attempt to replicate the design of prefabricated original equipment manufacturing abutments [13]. However, aftermarket manufacturers might change the design of the abutment to avoid infringing OEM patents, and the impact of these design changes on the performance of the implant prosthesis is unknown. Yilmaz et al. [14] investigated the load to the failure of five different titanium abutments, including one OEM abutment and four aftermarket abutments. The results showed that the OEM abutment (Zimmer PSA) was the only abutment that showed no fracture of any component before implant failure. On the other hand, all the aftermarket abutments demonstrated screw fracture at an average load of 649.17 N. They concluded that the screw fracture that occurred in aftermarket abutments could result in further clinical prosthetic complications. However, the dimensions of these titanium abutments were not identical, and the crowns were not made to simulate clinical situation in the study.
Owing to the fact that studies on aftermarket abutments are scarce and lack consistency in specimen design, the present study aims to compare the differences in maximum load capacity and modes of failure of the three different titanium abutments, including prefabricated OEM, CAD/CAM OEM and CAD/CAM aftermarket titanium abutments. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare OEM and aftermarket titanium abutments with identical external dimensions for a static loading test. In this manner, the errors caused by the difference in external dimensions of the abutments could be minimized. The null hypothesis was that no differences would be found in the maximum load capacity and modes of failure of the three different titanium abutments.

2. Materials and Methods

Three groups of titanium implant abutments (n = 3) with different compositions or manufacturers were investigated. The Pre-Ti group consisted of prefabricated OEM titanium abutments (Esthetic Abutment NobelReplace, Nobel Biocare, Yorba-Linda, CA, USA), the CAD-Ti group consisted of OEM titanium abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM technique by original manufacturers (NobelProcera Titanium Abutment, Nobel Biocare, Yorba-Linda, CA, USA), and the AM-Ti group consisted of CAD/CAM titanium abutments made by aftermarket manufacturers (JingGang, Tainan, Taiwan). These three types of titanium abutment were all made by titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V).
One abutment from the Pre-Ti group (Figure 1) was designated as the prototype abutment for the maxillary central incisors and scanned with a scanner (NobelProcera 2G scanner, Nobel Biocare, Kloten, Switzerland). OEM titanium abutments were then obtained from Nobel Biocare, and abutments from the AM-Ti group were milled by the milling machines (Arum 5X−150, DoowonID Co, Daejeon, Korea). In this way, all the abutments in nine pieces were manufactured in such a way that their external dimensions were identical, with a 0.5 mm-deep circumferential chamfer margin and an incisogingival height of 9.5 mm (Figure 2).
Nine implant fixtures (NobelReplace Conical Connection PMC RP 4.3 × 10 mm, Yorba-Linda, CA, USA) with standard diameter internal hexagonal connections were used for this study. A 0.35 Nm preload was applied to all the abutments to tighten them to the implant fixtures according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Zirconia crowns (VITA In-Ceram® YZ DISC Color medium, Bad Sackingen, Germany) with an incisogingival height of 11 mm and a mesiodistal width of 8.5 mm were fabricated for all 9 abutments by scanning each abutment (Activity 880, Smart Optics, Bochum, Germany). The intaglio surface of the zirconia crowns and the surface of the titanium abutments were sandblasted and a ceramic primer (Cera-Resin Bond, CRB, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) was applied over the intaglio surface of the zirconia crowns. The crowns were bonded to the abutments using a dual-polymeric composite resin cement (RelyX U200 Self-adhesive Resin Cement, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Excess cement was removed at ×10 magnification.
The maximum load capacity of the titanium abutments was measured using the all-electric dynamic test instrument (ElectroPulsTM E3000, Instron, Norwood, MA, USA). A metal jig was fabricated to hold the specimen in a position so that the long axis of the implant fixture was tilted in a 30 ° angulation to simulate a Class I incisor relationship (Figure 3) [15,16,17,18]. After placing the specimen in the jig, a metal rod, 6 mm in diameter, was used to place loading at 2 mm lingual to the incisal edge of the zirconia crown. The speed of the universal testing machine was set at 1 mm/min, and the load was placed on the zirconia crown. The crosshead motion was stopped after the load started to decrease because of the plastic deformation, or fracture, of the implant–abutment complex, and the value of the maximum load capacity was recorded. In addition, the modes of failure of the titanium abutment and implant fixture were examined and analyzed under a digital microscope (VHX−950F, Keyence, Belgium). The data were statistically analyzed by variation analysis (ANOVA) using SPSS® software (version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) to compare the maximum load capacity between the 3 groups of titanium abutments. Since the average of the maximum incisive force in the anterior region reported in the studies was 370 N [19,20], an expected load capacity of 740 N (with safety factor 2.0) was determined to evaluate the reliability of the titanium abutments.

3. Results

The mean maximum load capacity was 803.95 N for the Pre-Ti group, 911.05 N for the CAD-Ti group, and 460.96 N for the AM-Ti group (Table 1). There were significant differences in maximum load capacity among the three groups (one-way ANOVA, P < 0.005). The mean maximum load capacity of both OEM titanium abutments was significantly higher than the aftermarket titanium abutments (P < 0.05; Tukey, HSD). The difference in maximum load capacity between the prefabricated OEM and the CAD/CAM OEM titanium abutments was not statistically significant (Figure 4). The power analysis (G-Power version 3.1.9.2, Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany) for one-way ANOVA revealed the power of β = 0.99.
The maximum load capacity of the Pre-Ti and CAD-Ti abutments were 8.64% and 23.11% higher than the expected load capacity (740 N), respectively. However, the aftermarket abutment showed 37.71% lower than expected load capacity.
All these three types of implant–abutment complexes exhibited similar modes of failure, which included deformation of the abutment and implant, fracture of the abutment and retentive screw. Only one specimen in the prefabricated OEM titanium abutments demonstrated failure without abutment fracture. The fracture surface of most screws was at the level of the implant platform (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

In the present study, both OEM titanium abutments showed significantly higher maximum load capacity than the aftermarket titanium abutments. The null hypothesis, that all titanium abutments would have similar load-to-fracture values, was rejected. The maximum load capacity of the three different titanium abutments were all higher than the physiological incisive force in the anterior region reported in studies (90–370 N) [21]. However, in some cases, such as trauma-related dental injuries or patients with parafunction habits, (e.g., bruxism, clenching, etc.), the incisive force could be much higher than the physiological range [22]. Waltimo et al. [23] reported that in men with severe dental attrition, the maximum incisive force in the anterior region may reach 569 N or higher. If excessive force causes catastrophic damage to the implant–abutment complex, physicians may need to remove or replace it surgically, which usually leads to extensive damage to the alveolar bone. Therefore, in high-risk patients, the use of aftermarket titanium abutments should be more cautious.
Jarman et al. [13] investigated the maximum load capacity of OEM and aftermarket zirconia abutments under static load, and reported that aftermarket zirconia abutments had significantly lower static load values than their counterpart OEM abutments. Kelly et al. [24] confirmed that under cyclic loading study, OEM abutments (Straumann) clearly outperformed aftermarket abutments (Atlantis). They concluded that the design and fabrication differed by aftermarket manufacturers could significantly influence performance. These results could also raise concerns about the use of aftermarket abutments.
Both OEM abutment groups were manufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (Nobel Biocare) in the current study. Since both titanium abutments may be fabricated by the same block material and equipment, it seems reasonable that they possess comparable maximum load capacity. By contrast, aftermarket abutments showed a significantly lower maximum load capacity. This difference may result from block material, manufacturing process accuracy, and quality control. The mechanical properties of titanium alloys are affected by the microstructure of the raw materials. Various manufacturing processes, such as thermomechanical and heat treatment processes, impart various titanium alloy microstructures, which in turn, leads to varying mechanical properties [25]. Aftermarket manufacturers using different raw materials from original manufacturers may affect the performance of the maximum load capacity of titanium abutments. Besides, titanium is a difficult metal to machine. Machining guidelines include cutting at lower speeds, sharpening tools, using sturdy set-ups, and never interrupting the cut, and these guidelines should be followed [26]. If aftermarket manufacturers fail to follow the guidelines, the mechanical performance of titanium abutments could be significantly influenced. For example, the surface discontinuity caused by poor processing can reduce the ductility and fatigue properties of the metal. Overheating of the surface can result in interstitial pickup of oxygen and nitrogen, making the metal hard and brittle [27].
The difference of maximum load capacity between OEM and aftermarket titanium abutments may also result from misfit between the implant fixture, abutment and retentive screw. The connection between the implant fixture and the abutment plays an important role in the stability of the system [28]. The improper connection between the two parts may cause compression of the implant screw, resulting in torque loss, loosening of the screw, or fracture of the screw [29,30,31,32]. Several studies have suggested that aftermarket abutments differ in the design of connection surfaces and materials exhibiting higher rotational misfit and microgap [33,34]. Gigandet et al. [35] evaluated the accuracy of the connection between the original and non-original abutments and concluded that non-original abutments differed in the design of the connection surfaces and materials showed higher rotational misfit, which may lead to unexpected failures. In addition, the microgaps and cavities between the implant, abutment and screw may become a bacterial reservoir [36,37,38], the colonization of microorganisms could trigger chronic inflammatory infiltration. As implant–abutment interface is located near the alveolar bone crest, these inflammatory host responses could lead to peri-implant soft tissue inflammation and marginal bone loss [39,40,41,42,43].
All titanium abutments in the present study showed similar modes of failure, including deformation of the implants and abutments and eventually causing screw fracture. Alqahtani et al. [44] assessed the modes of failures of titanium abutments under static load, and found that all the titanium abutments experienced screw fracture and abutment bending at the apical part. Titanium has settling effects which could tolerate a certain degree of elastic deformation and withstand plastic deformation caused by friction between different components [45,46]. However, when the load is increased beyond the yield limit of the titanium abutment, it will deform and bend, eventually causing the weakest part to fracture, which is usually the abutment screw.
This study has several limitations, such as the small number of samples and the use of static rather than cyclic loads, which may not fully replicate the intraoral conditions. However, the results of this study should provide relative comparisons to guide clinicians until more definitive laboratory tests are reported. Future studies should include a large number of samples and simulate intraoral conditions to obtain more definitive laboratory results.

5. Conclusions

In the present investigation, three types of titanium abutments with different processes or manufacturers were tested, and the critical conclusions are summarized as follows:
(1)
Prefabricated OEM and CAD/CAM OEM titanium abutments have a comparable maximum load capacity (803.95 N and 911.05 N, respectively) and are significantly higher than CAD/CAM aftermarket titanium abutments (460.96 N).
(2)
When the safety factor 2.0 was used to evaluate the reliability of titanium abutments, the maximum load capacity of prefabricated OEM and CAD/CAM OEM titanium abutments were 8.64% and 23.11% higher than the expected load capacity (740 N), respectively. However, the aftermarket abutments showed 37.71% lower than the expected load capacity.
(3)
All these three types of implant–abutment complexes exhibited similar modes of failure, which included deformation of the abutment and implant, fracture of the abutment and retentive screw.
(4)
In high-risk patients, the use of aftermarket titanium abutments should be more cautious. Long-term clinical studies in the performance of aftermarket titanium abutments are required to verify their reliability in clinical use.

Author Contributions

Y.W. and C.C. contributed to the data curation and conceptualization; A.Y.W. contributed to the project administration and supervision; M.T. and H.C. contributed to the methodology; Y.C. contributed to the investigation and writing of this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the following government and academic organizations: Chang Gung Medical Foundation and Cheng Shiu University (CMRPG8G0011).

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the following government and academic organizations: Chang Gung Medical Foundation and Cheng Shiu University (CMRPG8G0011). The authors would like to thank all colleagues who contributed to this study and statistical assistance of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital statistics center.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koo, K.T.; Wikesjö, U.M.; Park, J.Y.; Kim, T.I.; Seol, Y.J.; Ku, Y.; Rhyu, I.C.; Chung, C.P.; Lee, Y.M. Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region: A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study. J. Periodontol. 2010, 2, 1242–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Gotfredsen, K. A 10-year prospective study of single tooth implants placed in the anterior maxilla. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 2, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Schmitt, A.; Zarb, G.A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1993, 2, 197–202. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jung, R.E.; Zembic, A.; Pjetursson, B.E.; Zwahlen, M.; Thoma, S.D. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012, 23 (Suppl. 6), 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pjetursson, B.E.; Thoma, D.; Jung, R.; Zwahlen, M.; Zembic, A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012, 23 (Suppl. 6), 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lindhe, J.; Berglundh, T. The interface between the mucosa and the implant. Periodontology 2000 1998, 2, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Linkevicius, T.; Apse, P.; Grybauskas, S.; Puisys, A. Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: A 1-year pilot study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 2, 2272–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jorge, J.R.; Barão, V.A.; Delben, J.A.; Faverani, L.P.; Queiroz, T.P.; Assunção, W.G. Titanium in dentistry: Historical development, state of the art and future perspectives. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2013, 2, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singla, A.K.; Singh, J.; Sharma, V.S.; Gupta, M.K.; Song, Q.; Rozumek, D.; Krolczyk, G.M. Impact of cryogenic treatment on HCF and FCP performance of β-solution treated Ti-6Al-4V ELI biomaterial. Materials 2020, 13, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sailer, I.; Zembic, A.; Jung, R.E.; Siegenthaler, D.; Holderegger, C.; Hammerle, C.H. Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for canine and posterior single-tooth implant reconstructions: Preliminary results at 1 year of function. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009, 2, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zembic, A.; Sailer, I.; Jung, R.E.; Hammerle, C.H. Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009, 2, 802–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Kapos, T.; Evans, C. CAD/CAM technology for implant abutments, crowns, and superstructures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2014, 2, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Jarman, J.M.; Hamalian, T.; Randi, A.P. Comparing the fracture resistance of alternatively engineered zirconia abutments with original equipment manufactured abutments with different implant connection designs. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2017, 2, 992–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Yilmaz, B.; Salaita, L.G.; Seidt, J.D.; Clelland, N.L.; McGlumphy, E.A. Load to failure of different titanium abutments for an internal hexagon implant. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 2, 513–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yildirim, M.; Fischer, H.; Marx, R.; Edelhoff, D. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003, 2, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Adatia, N.D.; Bayne, S.C.; Cooper, L.F.; Thompson, J.Y. Fracture resistance of yttria-stabilized zirconia dental implant abutments. J. Prosthodont. 2009, 2, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nothdurft, F.P.; Doppler, K.E.; Erdelt, K.J.; Knauber, A.W.; Pospiech, P.R. Fracture behavior of straight or angulated zirconia implant abutments supporting anterior single crowns. Clin. Oral Investig. 2011, 2, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gehrke, P.; Dhom, G.; Brunner, J.; Wolf, D.; Degidi, M.; Piattelli, A. Zirconium implant abutments: Fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening. Quintessence Int. 2006, 2, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Baldissara, P.; Llukacej, A.; Ciocca, L.; Valandro, F.L.; Scotti, R. Translucency of zirconia copings made with different CAD/CAM systems. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2010, 2, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Paphangkorakit, J.; Osborn, J.W. The effect of pressure on a maximum incisal bite force in man. Arch Oral Biol. 1997, 2, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Helkimo, E.; Carlsson, G.E.; Helkimo, M. Bite force and state of dentition. Acta. Odontol. Scand. 1977, 2, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Stuebinger, S.; Hodel, Y.; Filippi, A. Trauma to anterior implants. Dent. Traumatol. 2004, 2, 169–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Waltimo, A.; Nysträm, M.; Känänen, M. Bite force and dentofacial morphology in men with severe dental attrition. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 1994, 102, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kelly, J.R.; Rungruanganunt, P. Fatigue behavior of computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture ceramic abutments as a function of design and ceramics processing. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2016, 2, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lütjering, G. Influence of processing on microstructure and mechanical properties of (α + β) titanium alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1998, 243, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Narutaki, N.; Murakoshi, A.; Motonishi, S.; Takeyama, H. Study on machining of titanium alloys. CIRP Ann. Technol. 1983, 32, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Froes, F.H.; Qian, M. Titanium in Medical and Dental Applications, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Maeda, Y.; Satoh, T.; Sogo, M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: A short communication. J. Oral Rehabil. 2006, 2, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Baldassarri, M.; Hjerppe, J.; Romeo, D.; Fickl, S.; Thompson, V.P.; Stappert, C.F. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2012, 2, 537–543. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sailer, I.; Mühlemann, S.; Zwahlen, M.; Hämmerle, C.H.; Schneider, D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012, 23 (Suppl. 6), 163–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Asvanund, P.; Morgano, S.M. Photoelastic stress analysis of external versus internal implant-abutment connections. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2011, 2, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Weinberg, L.A. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported protheses. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1993, 2, 19–31. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ivanovski SGroup, D. Initiator paper. Implants—peri-implant (hard and soft tissue) interactions in health and disease: The impact of explosion of implant manufacturers. J. Int. Acad. Periodontol. 2015, 2, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  34. Karl, M.; Irastorza-Landa, A. In vitro characterization of original and nonoriginal implant abutments. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2018, 2, 1229–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gigandet, M.; Bigolin, G.; Faoro, F.; Bürgin, W.; Brägger, U. Implants with original and non-original abutment connections. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Schwarz, F.; Hegewald, A.; Becker, J. Impact of implant–abutment connection and positioning of the machined collar/microgap on crestal bone level changes: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2014, 2, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Canullo, L.; Penarrocha-Oltra, D.; Soldini, C.; Mazzocco, F.; Penarrocha, M.; Covani, U. Microbiological assessment of the implant–abutment interface in different connections: Cross-sectional study after 5 years of functional loading. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2015, 2, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Quirynen, M.; Bollen, C.M.; Eyssen, H.; van Steenberghe, D. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Branemark system. An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 1994, 2, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Adell, R.; Lekholm, U.; Rockler, B.; Brånemark, P.I.; Lindhe, J.; Eriksson, B.; Sbordone, L. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1986, 2, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Broggini, N.; McManus, L.M.; Hermann, J.S.; Medina, R.U.; Oates, T.W.; Schenk, R.K.; Buser, D.; Mellonig, J.T.; Cochran, D.L. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant–abutment interface. J. Dent. Res. 2003, 2, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jansen, K.; Conrads, G.; Richter, J. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant–abutment interface. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1997, 2, 527–540. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hermann, J.S.; Schoolfield, J.D.; Schenk, R.K.; Buser, D.; Cochran, D.L. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J. Periodontol. 2001, 2, 1372–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Nair, S.P.; Meghji, S.; Wilson, M.; Reddi, K.; White, P.; Henderson, B. Bacterially induced bone destruction: Mechanisms and misconceptions. Infect. Immun. 1996, 64, 2371–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Alqahtani, F.; AlAmar, M. In Vitro Comparison of Modes of Failures among Titanium and One- and Two-piece Zirconia Abutment under Static Load. Eur. J. Dent. 2020, 2, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Winkler, S.; Ring, K.; Ring, J.D.; Boberick, K.G. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: Overview. J. Oral Implantol. 2003, 2, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Foong, J.K.; Judge, R.B.; Palamara, J.E.; Swain, M.V. Fracture resistance of titanium and zirconia abutments: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 2, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Metals 10 00556 g001 550
Figure 1. Titanium prototype abutment (Esthetic Abutment NobelReplace regular platform (RP) 3 mm).
Figure 1. Titanium prototype abutment (Esthetic Abutment NobelReplace regular platform (RP) 3 mm).
Metals 10 00556 g001
Metals 10 00556 g002 550
Figure 2. All the abutments were fabricated in identical external dimensions: (a) the Pre-Ti group; (b) the CAD-Ti group; (c) the AM-Ti group.
Figure 2. All the abutments were fabricated in identical external dimensions: (a) the Pre-Ti group; (b) the CAD-Ti group; (c) the AM-Ti group.
Metals 10 00556 g002
Metals 10 00556 g003 550
Figure 3. Thirty-degree loading of the assembled specimen with an all-electric dynamic test instrument.
Figure 3. Thirty-degree loading of the assembled specimen with an all-electric dynamic test instrument.
Metals 10 00556 g003
Metals 10 00556 g004 550
Figure 4. Bar graph showing the mean maximum load capacity was significantly higher for both original equipment manufacturer (OEM) titanium abutments (Pre-Ti and CAD-Ti) than for aftermarket abutments (AM-Ti). Comparisons were done by one-way ANOVA (P < 0.005) followed by group-to-group comparisons.
Figure 4. Bar graph showing the mean maximum load capacity was significantly higher for both original equipment manufacturer (OEM) titanium abutments (Pre-Ti and CAD-Ti) than for aftermarket abutments (AM-Ti). Comparisons were done by one-way ANOVA (P < 0.005) followed by group-to-group comparisons.
Metals 10 00556 g004
Metals 10 00556 g005 550
Figure 5. Mode of failure in aftermarket titanium abutment: (a) deformation of hexagon portion of the abutment; (b) fracture line over the abutment (arrow); (c) deformation of the implant with retentive screw fracture, the fracture surface of retentive screw was at the level of the implant platform.
Figure 5. Mode of failure in aftermarket titanium abutment: (a) deformation of hexagon portion of the abutment; (b) fracture line over the abutment (arrow); (c) deformation of the implant with retentive screw fracture, the fracture surface of retentive screw was at the level of the implant platform.
Metals 10 00556 g005
Table
Table 1. Maximum load capacity of titanium abutments (n = 3).
Table 1. Maximum load capacity of titanium abutments (n = 3).
GroupSpecimen No.Maximum Load Capacity (N)MeanSD
Prefabricated OEM titanium abutment (Pre-Ti)1795.77803.9576.85
2731.52
3884.57
CAD/CAM OEM titanium abutment (CAD-Ti)41061.82911.05143.86
5775.27
6896.07
CAD/CAM aftermarket titanium abutment (AM-Ti)7455.23460.969.21
8471.59
9456.07
OEM, original equipment manufacturers; CAD/CAM, computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing; SD, standard deviation.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Chen, H.; Tsai, M.; Chang, C.; Wu, A.Y. Comparing the Maximum Load Capacity and Modes of Failure of Original Equipment Manufactured and Aftermarket Titanium Abutments in Internal Hexagonal Implants. Metals 2020, 10, 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10050556

AMA Style

Chang Y, Wu Y, Chen H, Tsai M, Chang C, Wu AY. Comparing the Maximum Load Capacity and Modes of Failure of Original Equipment Manufactured and Aftermarket Titanium Abutments in Internal Hexagonal Implants. Metals. 2020; 10(5):556. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10050556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chang, Yutsen, Yuling Wu, Hungshyong Chen, Minghsu Tsai, Chiachen Chang, and Aaron Yujen Wu. 2020. "Comparing the Maximum Load Capacity and Modes of Failure of Original Equipment Manufactured and Aftermarket Titanium Abutments in Internal Hexagonal Implants" Metals 10, no. 5: 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10050556

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop