Next Article in Journal
Evidence of Individual Superspin Relaxation in Diluted Fe3O4/Hexane Ferrofluids
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Multiple Used Implant Drills on Their Cutting Performance and Fracture Resistance
Previous Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Strengthening RC Beams Using Composite Materials—An Accelerated Strengthening Method
Previous Article in Special Issue
Numerical Analysis of Zirconium and Titanium Implants under the Effect of Critical Masticatory Load
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/ma16134848
materials-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

Effect of Antirotational Two-Piece Titanium Base on the Vertical Misfit, Fatigue Behavior, Stress Concentration, and Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns

by
Dario Adolfi
1,
Manassés Tercio Vieira Grangeiro
1,
Pietro Ausiello
2,*,
Marco Antonio Bottino
1 and
João Paulo Mendes Tribst
3
1
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São José Dos Campos 12220-000, Brazil
2
School of Dentistry, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
3
Department of Reconstructive Oral Care, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(13), 4848; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134848
Submission received: 6 June 2023 / Revised: 28 June 2023 / Accepted: 4 July 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants and Materials (Second Volume))
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated the effects of antirotational titanium bases on the mechanical behavior of CAD/CAM titanium bases used for implant-supported prostheses. The aim was to assess the impact on the marginal fit, fatigue behavior, stress concentration, and fracture load of implant-supported CAD/CAM zirconia crowns. Forty titanium implants were divided into two groups: those with antirotational titanium bases (ARs) and those with rotational titanium bases (RTs). Torque loosening and vertical misfit were evaluated before and after cyclic fatigue testing (200 N, 2 Hz, 2 × 106 cycles). Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min, 1000 kgf), and failed specimens were examined with microscopy. Three-dimensional models were created, and FEA was used to calculate stress. Statistical analysis was performed on the in vitro test data using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test (α = 0.5). Results show that the presence of an antirotational feature between the implant and titanium base reduced preload loss and stress concentration compared to rotational titanium bases. However, there were no differences in vertical misfit and resistance to compressive load.

1. Introduction

The replacement of missing teeth with dental implants is a well-documented and widely accepted treatment option known for its high success rate [1,2,3]. As patients’ aesthetic demands have increased, there has been a need for the development of new implant designs [4], advancements in surgical techniques [5], and improvements in prosthetic components [6,7,8,9,10]. Achieving precise adaptation between the abutment/implant and abutment/prosthesis is crucial for ensuring the long-term success of the dental treatment [9,10]. However, mechanical complications, such as screw loosening and fractures of screws, implants, or components, continue to be significant factors affecting implant therapy [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
In oral rehabilitations involving implants, mechanical complications more commonly arise from issues related to prostheses and their components [10,11,12]. Among implant-supported prostheses, screw loosening is the most frequently encountered complication, particularly in single-unit implant-supported crowns [1,10,12]. Additionally, over the long term, thread deformations in screws can occur, leading to a decrease in the ability to securely join the components and sometimes requiring the replacement of such structures [13,14,15].
Mechanical failure of the implant-supported structure can lead to biological complications such as inflammation of the peri-implant tissue, the formation of fistulas, and bone loss [1,11]. Therefore, long-term stability between the implant and the prosthetic component relies on maintaining proper preload force [9,12].
With the introduction of CAD/CAM systems, it is now possible to produce prosthetic components in a customized manner to recreate an appropriate emergence profile, facilitating the formation of the anatomical mucosal topography and cervical contour of the restoration [8,14]. CAD software utilizes scanned data from the patient’s models, which are then sent to a milling machine to produce a prosthetic component from metal or ceramic, eliminating the inherent inaccuracies associated with the lost-wax method. Recent analyses of the mechanical performance of zirconia abutments have shown they have lower fracture resistance compared to titanium abutments [15,16,17]. Zirconia exhibits promising industrial potential due to its high hardness, thermochemical stability, and biocompatibility. It finds extensive use in oral repair, tissue engineering, electrolyte materials, and structural applications. However, zirconia face issues like blockage, detachment, and cracking in high-stress environments [17,18]. To overcome this limitation, a hybrid component has been developed, featuring a titanium base (connection link) bonded to a mesostructure [19,20]. This hybrid abutment has showed superior aesthetics and adequate mechanical response in immediate- and long-term studies [10,17].
Hybrid abutments are available for external hexagon, internal hexagon, Morse taper, and alternative prosthetic connections [18]. It can be used at different heights and angulations, indicated for anterior and posterior crowns [19,20,21,22,23]. However, how the geometrical morphology of the titanium base, including antirotational and conical designs, affects the stability of the implant–abutment connection has not been investigated yet [22,24]. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the effect of an antirotational titanium base on the marginal fit, fatigue behavior, stress concentration, and fracture load of implant-supported CAD/CAM zirconia crowns.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials that were used in the present study are described in Table 1.

2.1. Specimen Preparation

This study used forty (40) implants (IPX 4012, post-extraction internal hexagonal connection, 4 × 12 mm, 4 mm platform, Nueva Galimplant, Sarria, Lugo, Spain), with a Morse taper connection [25]. These implants were installed in resin cylinders obtained through milling, with the following dimensions: 22 mm in height and 25 mm in diameter. For implant insertion, centered perforations were made in the resin cylinders using a pilot drill, followed by a drill size 2. The implants were placed inside each resin cylinder using an implant insertion wrench, ensuring that the maximum torque did not exceed 60 N, and the platform was positioned 3 mm above the resin, following the ISO 14801 second edition of 2007 [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Half of the implants received the antirotational two-piece titanium bases (ARs), and the other half received the rotational two-piece titanium bases (RTs). The fixation screws were inserted into their central perforations and tightened with a manual torque wrench until properly seated. The maximum defined preload was set at 20 N·cm using a digital torque wrench.
An acrylic dental mannequin was used to create the provisional restoration, which served as a base for scanning and fabricating all the milled zirconia restorations used in this study. The region of tooth 21 was used to position the implant and simulate the ideal three-dimensional position on the working model. The acrylic tooth 21 was separated 2 mm below the cervical contour line and used to produce the provisional restoration over the implant.
The provisional restoration was scanned using a CEREC scanner (Dentsply Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). The captured images were exported in STL format and transferred to the Ceramill Mind software, ver 4.0 (AmannGirrbach, Koblach, Austria) to replicate the exact shape of the restoration. With the project fully defined, the machining stage started. The project data were sent to the milling center (Ceramill Motion 2, AmannGirrbach, Koblach, Austria), which milled 40 restorations from a zirconia disc with identical anatomical interfaces for the multi-position CEREC aesthetic system containing a screw-access channel.
All restorations were milled with 20% larger dimensions to compensate for the volumetric shrinkage that occurs during the zirconia sintering process. After milling, all restorations had the same morphology and size, and were separated from the block using a low-speed carbide bur. Excess was removed with a diamond bur. The restorations were then polished with low-speed abrasive rubber before the sintering process to ensure a smooth surface. After polishing, all specimens were cleaned with isopropyl alcohol in an ultrasonic bath for 5 min.
The sintering of the restorations was carried out using a high-temperature sintering oven (InFire HTC Speed, Dentsply Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). The restorations were placed inside the firing tray and completely dried to enable the use of the accelerated firing cycle. The multi-position interfaces for the CEREC system were tightened onto the implant with a positioned base, which served as a two-piece titanium base. The screw heads were then protected with Teflon tape. The external surfaces of the interfaces were sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide (Al2O3) at a maximum pressure of 2.5 bar for 10 s at a distance of 10 mm and cleaned with isopropyl alcohol in an ultrasonic bath for 5 min. The silane agent (Clearfill Ceramic Primer, Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was applied inside the zirconia restorations for 60 s, followed by an air jet to remove the excess. Subsequently, the metal primer (Alloy Primer, Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was applied to the abutment surface for approximately 5 s (Figure 1).
The resin cement (Panavia F2.0 Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was manipulated by mixing equal amounts of pastes A and B for 20 s. Subsequently, the cement was applied to the outer surrounding walls of the interfaces and the inner walls of the restorations. The restorations were held under digital pressure, and excess cement was removed with a microbrush. Oxygen-blocking gel (Oxyguard Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was applied to the bonding area between the interfaces and the zirconia restorations. Light curing was performed using an LED unit for 20 s on each surface of the restorations (high intensity of 1000 mW/cm2, with wavelengths ranging from 395 to 480 nm—Valo, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA). Cement residues were removed with polishing cups, and the specimens were stored in distilled water for 48 h for complete resin curing.

2.2. Vertical Misfit

As a baseline, immediately after the storage period, the interfaces between the titanium bases and the restorations of each specimen were analyzed using an optical microscope (Discovery V20, Zeiss, Jena, Germany) at a magnification of 40×, and the vertical misfit was measured in micrometers. Ten measurements of the interfaces were taken on each side of the restorations (4 regions (buccal, mesial, distal, and palatal)) by a single trained examiner [29]. After fatigue cycling, the same protocol was applied to measure the vertical misfit in the long-term simulation.

2.3. Capacity to Maintain Placement Torque

The prosthetic screws were tightened to 20 N·cm using a digital torque wrench (TQ 680; Instrutherm Measurement Instruments, São Paulo, Spain). The removal torques of the screws were measured after 5 min (initial removal torque of preload) using the same digital torque wrench. The data were collected, and the torque was reapplied to the screws.
The preload efficiency for each abutment was calculated based on the following formula: preload efficiency (%) = removal torque/tightening torque × 100 [10].

2.4. Mechanical Fatigue

The mechanical fatigue test was conducted using a thermo-mechanical cyclic loading device. For this purpose, forty specimens (n = 20 per group) were placed in a stainless-steel base with a 30-degree angulation relative to the ground, following ISO 14801, to assess the aging effect. Subsequently, the specimens were subjected to a load of 200 N at a frequency of 2 Hz for 2 × 106 cycles (Figure 2) [10,29].
All aged specimens were re-evaluated for vertical misfit and torque maintenance capacity to assess the effect of cyclic fatigue on these parameters [10].

2.5. Post-Fatigue Fracture Load

Subsequently, the specimens were repositioned to their initial condition and subjected to the compressive load-to-failure test using a universal testing machine (EMIC DL 1000, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil). Compressive load will be applied to each specimen through a unidirectional vertical platform at a rate of 0.5 mm/min until failure, defined as either screw or implant–abutment interface fracture. The maximum load at failure will be recorded in Newtons [10]. Each fractured restoration was visually inspected at 25× magnification under an optical microscope (Zeiss Discovery V20; LLC, Oberkochen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany).

2.6. Finite Element Analysis

Using computer-aided design software (Rhinoceros version 5.0 SR8, McNeel North America, Seattle, WA, USA), a fixation cylinder model was recreated for an in vitro study, maintaining dimensions of 25 × 20 mm. Implant designs (4.3 × 11.5 mm) were then drawn based on 4.3 mm diameter circles to determine the implant’s three-dimensional structure [18]. The models were created following the BioCAD protocol using STL files provided by Nueva Galimplant (Sarria, Lugo, Spain). After converting the implant’s geometry into a solid, including surface and polysurface union, the models consisted of a fixation cylinder, prosthetic screw, titanium base, and prosthetic restoration [10]. The final models were exported as STEP files after thorough verification (Figure 3).
Each previously described geometry was exported to the computer-aided engineering software (ANSYS 19.2, ANSYS Inc., Houston, TX, USA). A static structural analysis was conducted to calculate the results. In the mechanical module (Table 2), material information was assigned to each solid component considering them isotropic and homogeneous, utilizing the elasticity modulus and Poisson ratio from previous studies [10,30,31,32,33]. Two different abutment designs were considered, similar to the in vitro test (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
The contacts were considered bonded, except between the metallic structures, where a friction coefficient of 0.3 μ was assigned between the bodies. The number of tangent faces between the solids was equalized. An initial division with tetrahedral elements was automatically generated.
Subsequently, a 10% convergence test was employed to assist in mesh refinement and control, ensuring minimal influence on the results of the mathematical calculations [10]. The mesh convergence was applied based on von Mises stress peaks, generated at the abutment interface, and collected by the Max probe from the mechanical module. The mesh density was adjusted by refining the existing mesh, locally in critical regions, using h-refinement (decreasing element size uniformly). TET10 elements were used in both models, with an element size of 0.4 mm, totaling 158,764 elements with 276,653 nodes for the ARs model and 158,310 elements with 274,785 nodes for the RTs model. The average aspect ratio was 1.72 with a maximum element skewness of 0.45 in the entire volume of the element model.
The loading was performed in the incisal region of the restoration as per ISO 14801. The fixation location was defined beneath the resin cylinder surface, simulating specimen support on a plane. An oblique load (Figure 6) was applied to the palatal surface (45°, 150 N) [27]. The prosthetic screw was preloaded to simulate the tightening corresponding to the torque applied in the laboratory model (20 N·cm).
The requested solutions were sought in terms of Von Mises stress for the implant and abutment in each group. The results are presented in stress maps with identical scales for visual comparison, and absolute values were used for quantitative analysis of stress peaks.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

For both the ARs and RTs groups, the vertical misfit results were submitted to a general linear model for two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) considering the following factors: “Region” (buccal, mesial, distal, and palatal) and “aging” (Yes or No). In the sequence, vertical misfit and torque maintenance capacity results were submitted to a general linear model for two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) considering the following factors: “abutment type” (ARs or RTs) and “aging” (Yes or No). The load to failure was submitted to one-way ANOVA considering the “abutment type” factor. The Tukey test was used to evaluate the comparisons between groups. All tests presented α value of 0.5. The stress maps were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively with the stress peaks in the restoration, titanium base, and prosthetic screw.

3. Results

3.1. Measurement of Vertical Misfit

For the vertical misfit evaluation in the ARs, the average values ranged from 95.61 to 99.91 μm. According to the statistical test, the crown region was not significant (F-value = 0.13; p-value = 0.94); nor were the aging (F-value = 0.01; p-value = 0.96) (Table 3) or the interaction of both factors (F-value = 0.08; p-value = 0.97).
The vertical misfit evaluation in the RTs group showed average values ranging from 96.12 to 104.30 μm. According to the statistical test, the crown region was not significant (F-value = 0.01; p-value = 0.99); nor were the aging (F-value = 0.15; p-value = 0.69) (Table 4) or the interaction of both factors (F-value = 0.00; p-value = 0.99).
A second two-way ANOVA was performed to compare the vertical misfit between the RTs and ARs regardless of the evaluated crown’s region. Similarly to the previous data, according to the statistical test, the misfit between both connection types was similar (F-value = 0.20; p-value = 0.65), without an effect due to the simulated aging (F-value = 0.08; p-value = 0.71) or the interaction of both factors (F-value = 0.12; p-value = 0.73). The average vertical misfit for the ARs was 95.25 ± 44.96 before and 98.23 ± 48.94 after aging, while the RTs showed 98.98 ± 31.88 before and 98.75 ± 41.58 after aging.

3.2. Torque Maintenance Capacity

Regarding torque maintenance capacity (Table 5), the interaction of factors presented a significant effect (F-value = 4.28; p-value = 0.04) on the capacity of the abutment to maintain the torque. The fatigue cycling significantly decreased the preload efficiency (in 32.75%) for the RTs group, while the ARs showed a torque decrease of 39.75%. The difference between both evaluated connections after fatigue cycling was 7% (1.4 N·cm), being detected as significant.

3.3. Compression Test

One-way ANOVA revealed similar (F-value = 0.00; p-value = 0.94) mean values of fracture resistance for the ARs (554.25 ± 68.8 N) and RTs (552.89 ± 58.1 N). Altogether, 80% of the restorations using the ARs failed in the screw and 20% failed at the cervical level of the crown, while 70% of the restorations using the RTs failed in the screw and 30% failed in the crown (Figure 7).

3.4. FEA

Finite element simulation showed that both modalities presented similar stress distribution at the external surface of the crown and implant threads (Figure 8). In analyzing the titanium base surface, was noted that the ARs presented fewer red colors in the colorimetric map of stress, which means it experienced lower stress concentration than the RTs group (Figure 8).
On the other hand, for the implant, the ARs showed a similar stress pattern in the threads than the RT, with lower stress than the abutments of both models, indicating a lower probability of failure in this area. The stress peak results are summarized in Table 6.

4. Discussion

The issue of vertical misfit has long been recognized as a significant concern in implant dentistry. Vertical misfit refers to the discrepancy between the implant fixture and the abutment, which can lead to complications such as peri-implant bone loss, implant failure, and compromised esthetics [33,34,35]. The prosthetic–abutment vertical misfit in clinical settings usually ranges from 50 to 160 μm in implant-supported prostheses manufactured using the casting technique [36]. The present results show that both evaluated abutment designs showed acceptable values of misfit in the range of 100 μm, before and after fatigue cycling. Therefore, a rotational or antirotational titanium base can be indicated to minimize vertical misfit during implant restoration procedures through meticulous fabrication techniques and precise fitting of the abutments.
The choice of abutment material and design plays a vital role in maintaining the placement torque of dental implants. In the present investigation, both abutments were assessed according to their capacity to sustain placement torque over time [36,37]. It was observed that the antirotational titanium base demonstrated superior torque maintenance compared to those with a rotational feature. This is likely because the hexagonal design of the abutment acts as rotational resistance against moments [38]. It is important to notice that both abutments showed a significant preload reduction after fatigue. However, the difference of 1.4 N·cm between them is far from being clinically relevant in comparison with the torque loss caused by the screw elastic recovery, which can reach 50.71% depending on the abutment design [39]. Therefore, the RTs group showed an acceptable behavior that can be associated with fully tapered internal connections, since the screw tightening is not fully transferred to preload because of its unique design. In summary, it will cause a wedging effect through the settlement of the abutment, increasing the frictional force between the implant–abutment joint [38]. These findings emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate abutments to ensure the long-term stability and functional success of dental implants [40]. Additionally, in this study, both the ARs and RTs groups were original components from the same manufacturer of the implant fixture. According to the literature, enhanced fit is expected when original components are used, and the original abutments exhibited lower percentages of torque reduction after cyclic loading than non-originals [40].
Implant mechanical fatigue and fracture remain significant concerns in implant dentistry [41,42]. Furthermore, implants with higher fracture loads are associated with enhanced durability and reduced risk of failure [43]. These findings highlight the importance of selecting implant systems with superior mechanical properties to optimize long-term clinical outcomes and minimize the occurrence of implant fractures. In the present study, both groups showed similar post-fatigue fracture load, with values higher than 500 N. It has been reported that the maximum bite force in the anterior region can range from 100 to 300 Newtons (N), depending on various factors, such as gender, age, occlusal condition, and method of measurement [44,45,46]. Therefore, both designs are suitable for use in the simulated clinical condition.
Understanding the stress distribution within dental implant restorations is critical for evaluating their biomechanical behavior and predicting potential complications. The complementary FEA was used to evaluate whether either abutment design exhibited any substantial differences in stress distribution that could potentially affect the long-term stability of implant-supported restorations. The stress maps revealed that both abutment designs demonstrated similar stress patterns, with only minor differences observed at the connection level. The stress region is correspondent to previous studies that evaluated different implants designs and brands, but with similar Morse taper connection [47,48,49].
This suggests that the overall stress distribution within the restorations was comparable between the two designs. These small differences at the connection level may be attributed to variations in the geometric features and differences in the surface contact of the ARs and RTs with the implant. Nonetheless, these differences were not significant enough to influence the biomechanical behavior of the restorations or raise concerns regarding their structural integrity according to the other in vitro tests. Therefore, both abutment designs can be considered as viable options for implant-supported restorations in the anterior region, as they exhibited comparable stress patterns and are likely to withstand the maximum bite forces encountered in this area.
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a powerful computational tool used to analyze complex structural behavior [50,51]. However, it has certain limitations that must be considered when extrapolating its results to a clinical scenario. Firstly, FEA heavily relies on accurate material properties and boundary conditions, which can be challenging to determine for biological tissues [52,53,54,55]. Additionally, FEA models typically consider static conditions and neglect dynamic factors such as tissue deformation and physiological loads. Correlating in vitro experiments with FEA can enhance the reliability of the present results. However, it is important to note that even with this correlation, there are still limitations to consider, such as the complexity of oral tissues and the dynamic nature of fatigue processes. Therefore, it is still crucial to exercise caution and consider additional factors when extrapolating results to clinical scenarios [56,57,58,59,60].

5. Conclusions

The clinical significance of incorporating an antirotational feature between the implant and titanium base is two-fold: firstly, it leads to a reduction in preload loss and stress concentration, promoting greater stability and longevity of the implant-supported prosthesis. This minimizes the risk of complications associated with implant loosening or failure. Secondly, while no significant differences were found in vertical misfit and resistance to compressive load, these factors remain crucial considerations for successful restorations. It can be suggested that both antirotational and rotational titanium bases may be considered for use in implant-supported prostheses. Clinicians can choose between these options based on individual patient needs, implant stability, and other clinical factors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.A., M.A.B. and J.P.M.T.; methodology, D.A., M.T.V.G., P.A. and J.P.M.T.; validation, D.A., P.A. and J.P.M.T.; formal analysis, D.A., M.T.V.G. and J.P.M.T.; investigation, D.A., M.T.V.G., M.A.B. and J.P.M.T.; resources, D.A., P.A., M.A.B. and J.P.M.T.; data curation, D.A. and M.T.V.G., writing—original draft preparation, D.A., M.T.V.G. and P.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A.B. and J.P.M.T.; supervision, M.A.B. and J.P.M.T.; project administration, D.A. and J.P.M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request of the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Soegiantho, P.; Suryawinata, P.G.; Tran, W.; Kujan, O.; Koyi, B.; Khzam, N.; Algarves Miranda, L. Survival of Single Immediate Implants and Reasons for Loss: A Systematic Review. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 378–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bushra, S.; Khierla, L.; Guindy, J.E.; Fahmy, N.; Nahass, H.E. Esthetic Patient Satisfaction, Marginal Bone Loss and Peri-Implant Tissue Success in Esthetic Zone: Systematic Review. Braz. Dent. Sci. 2022, 25, e2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yoshiyasu, R.H.; Cartelli, C.A.; Vianna, C.P.; Caldas, W.; Bernardes, S.R.; Trojan, L.C.; Freitas, R.M. de Peri-Implant Bone Level Assessment of Early Loaded Dental Implants Submitted to Different Prosthetic Protocols: A Case Report. Braz. Dent. Sci. 2023, 26, e3569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Giordano, M.; Ausiello, P.; Martorelli, M. Accuracy evaluation of surgical guides in implant dentistry by non-contact reverse engineering techniques. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, e178–e185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tribst, J.P.M.; Werner, A.; Blom, E.J. Failed Dental Implant: When Titanium Fractures. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ortensi, L.; Vitali, T.; Mirra, R.; Ortensi, M.; Borromeo, C. Ageing-Oriented Prosthetic Treatment Plan: A Case Report. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 496–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Deeb, J.G.; Reddy, N.G.; Hopfensperger, L.J.; Harris, A.L.; Bencharit, S. Same-Day Digital Dentistry Restorative Workflow for Single Immediate Provisionalization of Narrow-Diameter Implants: An Exploratory Prospective Study. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Valsan, I.M.; Pauna, M.R.; Petre, A.E.; Oancea, L. Biologic and Esthetic Outcome of CAD/CAM Custom Ceramic Implant Abutment: A Clinical Report. Maedica 2021, 16, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Uriciuc, W.A.; Boșca, A.B.; Babtan, A.M.; Feurden, C.N.; Ionel, A.; Vermeșan, H.; Popa, C.O.; Ilea, A. Optimization of the Manufacturing Process by Molding Cobalt-Chrome Alloys in Assembled Dental Frameworks. Prosthesis 2021, 3, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adolfi, D.; Tribst, J.; Borges, A.; Bottino, M. Torque Maintenance Capacity, Vertical Misfit, Load to Failure, and Stress Concentration of Zirconia Restorations Cemented or Notched to Titanium Bases. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2020, 35, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tallarico, M.; Meloni, S.M.; Park, C.-J.; Zadrożny, Ł.; Scrascia, R.; Cicciù, M. Implant Fracture: A Narrative Literature Review. Prosthesis 2021, 3, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tiossi, R.; Lin, L.; Rodrigues, R.C.S.; Heo, Y.C.; Conrad, H.J.; de da Mattos, M.G.C.; Ribeiro, R.F.; Fok, A.S.L. Digital Image Correlation Analysis of the Load Transfer by Implant-Supported Restorations. J. Biomech. 2011, 44, 1008–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Satwalekar, P.; Chander, K.S.; Reddy, B.A.; Sandeep, N.; Sandeep, N.; Satwalekar, T. A Simple and Cost Effective Method Used for Removal of a Fractured Implant Abutment Screw: A Case Report. J. Int. Oral Health 2013, 5, 120–123. [Google Scholar]
  14. Pelivan, I.; Šeparović, I.; Vuletić, M.; Dulčić, N.; Gabrić, D. Radiological and Periodontal Evaluation of Stock and Custom CAD/CAM Implant Abutments—A One-Year Follow-up Study. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Çin, V.; İzgi, A.D.; Kale, E.; Yilmaz, B. Marginal and Internal Fit of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Fabricated by Using Two Different CAD-CAM Workflows: An in Vitro Study. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lo Giudice, R.; Galletti, C.; Tribst, J.P.M.; Melenchón, L.P.; Matarese, M.; Miniello, A.; Cucinotta, F.; Salmeri, F. In Vivo Analysis of Intraoral Scanner Precision Using Open-Source 3D Software. Prosthesis 2022, 4, 554–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Huang, W.; Qiu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Gao, L.; Omran, M.; Chen, G. Microstructure and Phase Transformation Behavior of Al2O3–ZrO2 under Microwave Sintering. Ceram. Int. 2023, 49, 4855–4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Qiu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, W.; Peng, J.; Chen, J.; Gao, L.; Omran, M.; Li, N.; Chen, G. Sintering Properties of Tetragonal Zirconia Nanopowder Preparation of the NaCl + KCl Binary System by the Sol–Gel–Flux Method. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 1067–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martins, R.G.; Castro, T.S.d.; Dib, L.L.; Gehrke, S.A.; Mesquita, A.M.M. Influence of Restorative Material on the Distribution of Loads to the Bone in Hybrid Abutment Crowns—In Vitro Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gallo, S.; Pascadopoli, M.; Pellegrini, M.; Pulicari, F.; Manfredini, M.; Zampetti, P.; Spadari, F.; Maiorana, C.; Scribante, A. CAD/CAM Abutments versus Stock Abutments: An Update Review. Prosthesis 2022, 4, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. de Matos, J.D.M.; da Lopes, G.R.S.; Queiroz, D.A.; Pereira, A.L.J.; Sinhoreti, M.A.C.; de Ramos, N.C.; Lino, V.; de Oliveira, F.R.; Borges, A.L.S.; Bottino, M.A. Influence of the Peek Abutments on Mechanical Behavior of the Internal Connections Single Implant. Materials 2022, 15, 8133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Favasuli, L.; Mascarenhas, P.S.; Mauricio, P. Laboratory Fracture Resilience of Hybrid Abutments Used in Oral Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ožiūnas, R.; Sakalauskienė, J.; Staišiūnas, L.; Žekonis, G.; Žilinskas, J.; Janužis, G. Physical and Mechanical Changes on Titanium Base of Three Different Types of Hybrid Abutment after Cyclic Loading. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2023, 15, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Demachkia, A.M.; Sichi, L.G.B.; Rodrigues, J.V.M.; Junior, L.N.; de Araújo, R.M.; de Ramos, N.C.; Bottino, M.A.; Tribst, J.P.M. Implant-Supported Restoration with Straight and Angled Hybrid Abutments: Digital Image Correlation and 3D-Finite Element Analysis. European J. Gen. Dent. 2022, 11, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Menini, M.; Pesce, P.; Corvino, E.; Iannello, G.; Baldi, D.; Canullo, L. Clinical Outcomes of Dental Implants with Two Different Internal Connection Configurations—A RCT. Prosthesis 2022, 4, 564–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kohal, R.-J.; Trinkner, A.; Burkhardt, F.; Patzelt, S.B.M.; Vach, K.; Kušter, M.; Abram, A.; Kocjan, A.; Nold, J. Long-Term Stability of Hydrothermally Aged and/or Dynamically Loaded One-Piece Diameter Reduced Zirconia Oral Implants. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fiorillo, L.; Meto, A.; Cicciù, M. Bioengineering Applied to Oral Implantology, a New Protocol: “Digital Guided Surgery”. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dib-Zaitum, I.; Guadilla-González, Y.; Flores-Fraile, J.; Dib-Zakkour, J.; Benito-Garzón, L.; Montero, J. Effect Morphology and Surface Treatment of the Abutments of Dental Implants on the Dimension and Health of Peri-Implant Biological Space. Materials 2022, 15, 4422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nakano, L.J.N.; Gomes, L.C.L.; de Queiroz, T.S.; Paes-Junior, T.J. de A. Effect of Abutment Type and Tightening Sequence on Torque Maintenance Capacity after Mechanical Cycling in Splinted Implant-Supported Restorations. Oral 2021, 1, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fiorillo, L.; Milone, D.; D’Andrea, D.; Santonocito, D.; Risitano, G.; Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M. Finite Element Analysis of Zirconia Dental Implant. Prosthesis 2022, 4, 490–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. de Ramos, N.C.; Ramos, G.F.; Penteado, M.M.; de Melo, R.M.; Borges, A.L.S.; Bottino, M.A.; Tribst, J.P.M. Comparative Stress Evaluation between Bilayer, Monolithic and Cutback All-Ceramic Crown Designs: 3D Finite Element Study. Prosthesis 2021, 3, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cicciù, M.; Cervino, G.; Terranova, A.; Risitano, G.; Raffaele, M.; Cucinotta, F.; Santonocito, D.; Fiorillo, L. Prosthetic and Mechanical Parameters of the Facial Bone under the Load of Different Dental Implant Shapes: A Parametric Study. Prosthesis 2019, 1, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Heboyan, A.; Vardanyan, A.; Karobari, M.I.; Marya, A.; Avagyan, T.; Tebyaniyan, H.; Mustafa, M.; Rokaya, D.; Avetisyan, A. Dental Luting Cements: An Updated Comprehensive Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sichi, L.G.B.; Pierre, F.Z.; Arcila, L.V.C.; de Andrade, G.S.; Tribst, J.P.M.; Ausiello, P.; di Lauro, A.E.; Borges, A.L.S. Effect of Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique on the Stress Concentration of Endodontically Treated Upper Central Incisor Restored with Zirconia Crown: 3D-FEA. Molecules 2021, 26, 6113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vélez, J.; Peláez, J.; López-Suárez, C.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Tobar, C.; Suárez, M.J. Influence of Implant Connection, Abutment Design and Screw Insertion Torque on Implant-Abutment Misfit. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pereira, L.M.S.; Sordi, M.B.; Magini, R.S.; Calazans Duarte, A.R.; Souza, J.C.M. Abutment Misfit in Implant-Supported Prostheses Manufactured by Casting Technique: An Integrative Review. Eur. J. Dent. 2017, 11, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hein, D.; Joly, J.C.; Napimoga, M.H.; Peruzzo, D.C.; Martinez, E.F. Influence of Abutment Angulation on Loss of Prosthetic Abutment Torque under Mechanical Cycling. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 349.e1–349.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hyun, D.-G.; Kwon, H.-B.; Lim, Y.-J.; Koak, J.-Y.; Kim, M.-J. The Influence of a Positioning Hex on Abutment Rotation in Tapered Internal Implants: A 3D Finite Element Model Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2020, 35, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barbosa, G.A.S.; Bernardes, S.R.; das Neves, F.D.; Fernandes Neto, A.J.; de da Mattos, M.G.C.; Ribeiro, R.F. Relation between Implant/Abutment Vertical Misfit and Torque Loss of Abutment Screws. Braz. Dent. J. 2008, 19, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alonso-Pérez, R.; Bartolomé, J.F.; Ferreiroa, A.; Salido, M.P.; Pradíes, G. Original vs. Non-Original Abutments for Screw-Retained Single Implant Crowns: An in Vitro Evaluation of Internal Fit, Mechanical Behaviour and Screw Loosening. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2018, 29, 1230–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. de Matos, J.D.M.; Gomes, L.S.; de Carvalho Ramos, N.; Queiroz, D.A.; Tribst, J.P.M.; Campos, T.M.B.; Borges, A.L.S.; da Rocha Scalzer Lopes, G.; Bottino, M.A.; Paes Junior, T.J.A. Influence of CAD/CAM Abutment Heights on the Biomechanical Behavior of Zirconia Single Crowns. Metals 2022, 12, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suralik, K.; Sun, J.; Chen, C.-Y.; Lee, S. Effect of Fabrication Method on Fracture Strength of Provisional Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses. Prosthesis 2020, 2, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vinhas, A.S.; Aroso, C.; Salazar, F.; López-Jarana, P.; Ríos-Santos, J.V.; Herrero-Climent, M. Review of the Mechanical Behavior of Different Implant-Abutment Connections. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fontijn-Tekamp, F.A.; Slagter, A.P.; Van Der Bilt, A.; Van ’T Hof, M.A.; Witter, D.J.; Kalk, W.; Jansen, J.A. Biting and Chewing in Overdentures, Full Dentures, and Natural Dentitions. J. Dent. Res. 2000, 79, 1519–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lee, W.-T.; Koak, J.-Y.; Lim, Y.-J.; Kim, S.-K.; Kwon, H.-B.; Kim, M.-J. Stress Shielding and Fatigue Limits of Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone Dental Implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2012, 100, 1044–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Koc, D.; Dogan, A.; Bek, B. Bite Force and Influential Factors on Bite Force Measurements: A Literature Review. Eur. J. Dent. 2010, 4, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Fabris, D.; Moura, J.P.A.; Fredel, M.C.; Souza, J.C.M.; Silva, F.S.; Henriques, B. Biomechanical Analyses of One-Piece Dental Implants Composed of Titanium, Zirconia, PEEK, CFR-PEEK, or GFR-PEEK: Stresses, Strains, and Bone Remodeling Prediction by the Finite Element Method. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2022, 110, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. García-Braz, S.H.; Prados-Privado, M.; Zanatta, L.C.S.; Calvo-Guirado, J.L.; Prados-Frutos, J.C.; Gehrke, S.A. A Finite Element Analysis to Compare Stress Distribution on Extra-Short Implants with Two Different Internal Connections. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Chang, H.-C.; Chang, C.-H.; Li, H.-Y.; Wang, C.-H. Biomechanical Analysis of the Press-Fit Effect in a Conical Morse Taper Implant System by Using an in Vitro Experimental Test and Finite Element Analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grande, M.F.; Lopes, G.D.; Teixeira, M.L.; Pelegrine, A.A.; De Matos, J.D.; Nishioka, R.S. Mechanical Behavior of Implant-Supported Full-Arch Prostheses in Different Locations in the Maxilla: 3D-FEA and Strain Gauge Analysis. Braz. Dent. Sci. 2023, 26, 346–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ausiello, P.; Franciosa, P.; Martorelli, M.; Watts, D.C. Effects of Thread Features in Osseo-Integrated Titanium Implants Using a Statistics-Based Finite Element Method. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 919–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Epifania, E.; di Lauro, A.E.; Ausiello, P.; Mancone, A.; Garcia-Godoy, F.; Mendes Tribst, J.P. Effect of Crown Stiffness and Prosthetic Screw Absence on the Stress Distribution in Implant-Supported Restoration: A 3D Finite Element Analysis. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ausiello, P.; Tribst, J.P.M.; Ventre, M.; Salvati, E.; di Lauro, A.E.; Martorelli, M.; Lanzotti, A.; Watts, D.C. The Role of Cortical Zone Level and Prosthetic Platform Angle in Dental Implant Mechanical Response: A 3D Finite Element Analysis. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 1688–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ausiello, P.; Di Lauro, A.E.; Tribst, J.P.M.; Watts, D.C. Stress Distribution in Resin-Based CAD-CAM Implant-Supported Crowns. Dent. Mater. 2023, 39, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kang, M.; Smanio Neto, H.; Pelegrine, A.A.; Turssi, C.P.; Clemente-Napimoga, J.T.; Napimoga, M.H. Survival Rate of Dental Implants Installed by Postgraduate Students Attending an Implantology Program in Brazil: A 52-Month Retrospective Analysis. Front. Dent. Med. 2023, 4, 1170253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Desai, S.R.; Koulgikar, K.D.; Alqhtani, N.R.; Alqahtani, A.R.; Alqahtani, A.S.; Alenazi, A.; Heboyan, A.; Fernandes, G.V.O.; Mustafa, M. Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Van Oers, R.F.M.; Feilzer, A.J. Abutment-to-Fixture Load Transfer and Peri-Implant Bone Stress. Am. J. Dent. 2015, 28, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Datte, C.E.; Rodrigues, V.A.; Datte, F.B.; da Scalzer Lopes, G.R.; Borges, A.L.S.; Nishioka, R.S. The Effect of Different Bone Level and Prosthetic Connection on the Biomechanical Response of Unitary Implants: Strain Gauge and Finite Element Analyses. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 2021, 8, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Al-Asad, H.M.; El Afandy, M.H.; Mohamed, H.T.; Mohamed, M.H. Hybrid Prosthesis versus Overdenture: Effect of BioHPP Prosthetic Design Rehabilitating Edentulous Mandible. Int. J. Dent. 2023, 2023, 4108679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tokgöz, E.; Carro, M.A. Biomechanics of Facial Plastic Surgery Applications. In Cosmetic and Reconstructive Facial Plastic Surgery; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 257–279. ISBN 9783031311673. [Google Scholar]
Materials 16 04848 g001 550
Figure 1. Specimen preparation for ARs group (A–C) and RTs group (D–F).
Figure 1. Specimen preparation for ARs group (A–C) and RTs group (D–F).
Materials 16 04848 g001
Materials 16 04848 g002 550
Figure 2. Graph of loading/unloading during fatigue cycling.
Figure 2. Graph of loading/unloading during fatigue cycling.
Materials 16 04848 g002
Materials 16 04848 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) Final setup of experimental specimen and (B) CAD design with similar geometry for numerical analysis.
Figure 3. (A) Final setup of experimental specimen and (B) CAD design with similar geometry for numerical analysis.
Materials 16 04848 g003
Materials 16 04848 g004 550
Figure 4. Different 3D designs of titanium bases evaluated. (A) Antirotational base and (B) rotational base.
Figure 4. Different 3D designs of titanium bases evaluated. (A) Antirotational base and (B) rotational base.
Materials 16 04848 g004
Materials 16 04848 g005 550
Figure 5. Isometric with disassembled view geometries for both 3D designs of titanium bases evaluated. (A) Rotational base and (B) antirotational base.
Figure 5. Isometric with disassembled view geometries for both 3D designs of titanium bases evaluated. (A) Rotational base and (B) antirotational base.
Materials 16 04848 g005
Materials 16 04848 g006 550
Figure 6. (A) Finite element model after meshing refinement and boundary conditions applied in the simulation, (B) fixed support, and (C) loading region at palatal surface.
Figure 6. (A) Finite element model after meshing refinement and boundary conditions applied in the simulation, (B) fixed support, and (C) loading region at palatal surface.
Materials 16 04848 g006
Materials 16 04848 g007 550
Figure 7. Representative failure mode during compression test. (A,B) Screw fracture at the screw head; (C,D) fracture of the zirconia crown.
Figure 7. Representative failure mode during compression test. (A,B) Screw fracture at the screw head; (C,D) fracture of the zirconia crown.
Materials 16 04848 g007
Materials 16 04848 g008 550
Figure 8. The von Mises stress distribution according to each evaluated abutment design. (A,B) Stress maps for abutment and implant when using the ARs abutment. (C,D) Stress maps for abutment and implant when using RTs abutment.
Figure 8. The von Mises stress distribution according to each evaluated abutment design. (A,B) Stress maps for abutment and implant when using the ARs abutment. (C,D) Stress maps for abutment and implant when using RTs abutment.
Materials 16 04848 g008
Table
Table 1. Trademarks and manufacturers of the materials that were used in the present study.
Table 1. Trademarks and manufacturers of the materials that were used in the present study.
MaterialCommercial NameManufacturer
TitaniumImplant postextracción conexión interna hexagonal
4 × 12 mm platform 4 mm (batch 202009029) Cod IPX 4012		New Galimplant, Sarria, Lugo, Spain
TitaniumAbutment multi-posicíon recto anti-rotacional solidario altura 2 mm CI hexagonal (batch 202010078) Cod KMUSA S04020
TitaniumAbutment multi-posicíon recto anti-rotacional altura 2 mm CI hexagonal (batch 202005016) Cod KMUSA 04020
TitaniumInterfase compatible con Sistema Cerec para multi-posicíon estético anti-rotacional (batch 202005001) Cod EPCERCMUA 40
Self-curing acrylic resinUnifastGC America; Alsip, IL, USA
Inclusion resinPOM (Delrin) (batch 166976)Dupont; Wilmington, DE, USA
Zirconia disk for mesostructure3D pro ML (batch W200604ATB2M-01-P)Aidite Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China
Cementing agentPanavia F 2.0 Light (batch 000133)Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan
Primer for metalAlloy Primer (batch AA0096)Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan
Primer for zirconiaCeramic Primer Plus (batch 3P0053)Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan
Table
Table 2. Mechanical properties of the materials used in this study.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of the materials used in this study.
MaterialElastic Modulus (GPa)Poisson CoefficientReference
Titanium1050.33[32]
Zirconia2050.3[30,31]
Fixation resin2.80.3[10]
Resin cement11.80.3[33]
Table
Table 3. Average vertical misfit (μm) according to each region of the crown, before and after aging for the ARs group.
Table 3. Average vertical misfit (μm) according to each region of the crown, before and after aging for the ARs group.
RegionAgingMarginal Misfit
BuccalNo95.61 ± 45.21
Yes99.91 ± 50.38
DistalNo94.84 ± 45.56
Yes97.24 ± 49.02
PalatalNo96.07 ± 47.29
Yes98.24 ± 50.43
MesialNo94.47 ± 45.24
Yes97.52 ± 49.69
Table
Table 4. Average vertical misfit (μm) according to each region of the crown, before and after aging for RTs group.
Table 4. Average vertical misfit (μm) according to each region of the crown, before and after aging for RTs group.
RegionAgingMarginal Misfit
BuccalNo99.72 ± 32.3
Yes104.30 ± 55.06
DistalNo97.95 ± 30.02
Yes96.12 ± 37.48
PalatalNo99.33 ± 34.08
Yes96.57 ± 35.68
MesialNo98.92 ± 33.52
Yes98.02 ± 37.85
Table
Table 5. Removal torque (N·cm) according to group before and after aging. Grouping distribution according to Tukey test (95%).
Table 5. Removal torque (N·cm) according to group before and after aging. Grouping distribution according to Tukey test (95%).
Group*AgingTorque (N·cm)Grouping
ARs*No20.00A
RTs*No20.00A
RTs*Yes13.45 ± 2.18 B
ARs*Yes12.05 ± 2.08 C
Table
Table 6. The von Mises stress peak per model (MPa) in the abutment and implant structures.
Table 6. The von Mises stress peak per model (MPa) in the abutment and implant structures.
ModelStructureStress Peak (MPa)
ARAbutment818.56
Implant754.35
RTAbutment994.36
Implant755.87
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Adolfi, D.; Grangeiro, M.T.V.; Ausiello, P.; Bottino, M.A.; Tribst, J.P.M. Effect of Antirotational Two-Piece Titanium Base on the Vertical Misfit, Fatigue Behavior, Stress Concentration, and Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns. Materials 2023, 16, 4848. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134848

AMA Style

Adolfi D, Grangeiro MTV, Ausiello P, Bottino MA, Tribst JPM. Effect of Antirotational Two-Piece Titanium Base on the Vertical Misfit, Fatigue Behavior, Stress Concentration, and Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns. Materials. 2023; 16(13):4848. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134848

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adolfi, Dario, Manassés Tercio Vieira Grangeiro, Pietro Ausiello, Marco Antonio Bottino, and João Paulo Mendes Tribst. 2023. "Effect of Antirotational Two-Piece Titanium Base on the Vertical Misfit, Fatigue Behavior, Stress Concentration, and Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns" Materials 16, no. 13: 4848. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134848

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