Premium
Survival rate, fracture strength and failure mode of ceramic implant abutments after chewing simulation
Author(s) -
BUTZ F.,
HEYDECKE G.,
OKUTAN M.,
STRUB J. R.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01515.x
Subject(s) - abutment , dentistry , fracture (geology) , materials science , dental abutments , universal testing machine , titanium , orthodontics , implant , composite material , medicine , structural engineering , ultimate tensile strength , surgery , metallurgy , engineering
summary The aim of this study was to compare titanium‐reinforced ZrO 2 and pure Al 2 O 3 abutments regarding their outcome after chewing simulation and static loading. Forty‐eight standard diameter implants with an external hexagon were divided into three groups of 16 implants each and restored with three different types of abutments (group A: ZrO 2 abutments with titanium inserts; group B: Al 2 O 3 abutments; group C: titanium abutments). All abutments were fixated on the implants with gold‐alloy screws at 32 Ncm torque, and metal crowns were adhesively cemented onto the abutments. The specimens were exposed to 1·2 million cycles in a chewing simulator. Surviving specimens were subsequently loaded until fracture in a static testing device. Fracture loads (N) and fracture modes were recorded. A Wilcoxon Rank test to compare fracture loads among the three groups and a Fisher exact test to detect group differences in fracture modes were used for statistical evaluation ( P < 0·05). All specimens but one of group B survived chewing simulation. No screw loosening occurred. The median fracture loads (±s.d.) were as follows: group A, 294 N (±53); group B, 239 N (±83), and group C, 324 N (±85). The smaller fracture loads in group B were statistically significant. The use of pure Al 2 O 3 abutments resulted in significantly more abutment fractures. It is proposed that titanium‐reinforced ZrO 2 abutments perform similar to metal abutments, and can therefore be recommended as an aesthetic alternative for the restoration of single implants in the anterior region. All‐ceramic abutments made of Al 2 O 3 possess less favourable properties.