Abstract
When implants are required in prosthodontics treatment, one of the most important decisions is the choice of the final crown and the type of connection to the implant through the abutment. Hybrid abutments are becoming a primary choice. They are projected and produced with materials whose properties guarantee the required mechanical features (including resistance) and take advantage of the hybrid abutment crown retention between screw and cement. However, a review of the mechanical resistance of the different abutment types and associated materials is still lacking. This review aimed to study the in vitro mechanical efficiency of the hybrid abutments used in oral rehabilitation. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, B-on, and Google Scholar databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: 75 articles were identified from all databases, and 33 were selected after abstract screening. Thus, 21 studies were included in the review after full-text reading. Among the materials used for crowns, lithium disilicate was, aesthetically, the primary choice for its aesthetic and moderate strength. On the other hand, zirconia showed the best fracture resistance. Regarding the different kinds of abutments, there is still some lack of knowledge about the best design. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review, we can conclude that hybrid pillars are an excellent choice for oral rehabilitation through implants, showing improved resistance when including materials such as zirconia and lithium disilicate.
1. Introduction
Reconstructions for problems of the dental arch supported by implants are considered the preferred option thanks to their favorable longevity, aesthetics, and comfort. One of the most important decisions in using dental implants in prosthodontics is the choice of the final crown and the type of connection to the implant through the abutment. The implant–crown abutment can be either cemented or screwed. Both connections have advantages and disadvantages. Before choosing the type of connection between the implant and the crown, the prosthetist should consider the outcomes and features of the crown, the type of abutment, and other issues described elsewhere []. Crowns held by cement have led to relevant biological involvements such as inflammation of soft tissues and pathological bone recession. Comparing the condition of the peri-implant soft tissues and the surrounding bone near the restoration by screw and cement, the results favour screwed restoration. Screwed crowns have many advantages, such as recoverability, better control of the soft tissue’s health, and limited height. Cemented restorations guarantee a better passive, aesthetic, and precision fit of the occlusal surface because it creates a more homogeneous load distribution during its function []. Hybrid abutment and ceramic crowns are new approaches to improve aesthetics and strength in dental implants, being a reliable option in the anterior region []. The mesostructures of the abutments are cemented in a middle extra-oral environment. They are cemented on a titanium base with a standard height and diameter and are available for different prosthetic connections []. The hybrid abutments are made of a titanium insert connected to a ceramic structure through resin cement []. In this modality, similar to natural tooth recovery, the abutment can be prefabricated or personalized and is attached to the crown by cement [].
Today, through CAD/CAM technology, the hybrid abutment is projected and produced, with a focus on the mechanical features of the materials []. Currently, there is a wide range of CAD/CAM ceramic abutments with different geometries for connecting the abutment to the implant. The hybrid abutments provide many potential advantages: convenient mechanical features, simplicity, and efficiency []. These new systems have attracted remarkable interest due to their high resistance to fractures, pleasant aesthetics, accurate measures with the implant, and biocompatibility [].
The hybrid abutment, where a bevelled edge is fixed to the palatal side and an intrasulcular component of the restoration is limited to the vestibular side, can be produced by two different designs:
- -
- A hybrid abutment crown with the abutment and the crown fabricated as a unique piece that will be attached to the titanium base and screwed to the implant.
- -
- A hybrid abutment with a separated crown with the abutment first fixed to the titanium base and then screwed to the implant, followed by cementation of the whole ceramic crown on it.
The hybrid abutment crown combines the retention advantages between the screw and cement. However, only a few studies have rated the differences between the hybrid crowns and the hybrid abutments with separated crowns [,].
Traditionally, hybrid abutments’ design and materials usually depend on the doctor’s and/or patient’s preferences and the patient’s clinical situation. However, mechanical efficiency is also important to consider. To our knowledge, there is still no review assessing the mechanical efficiency of the design and materials used in the hybrid abutments. Thus, we reviewed and synthesized, for the first time, the resilience results obtained from in vitro studies to contribute to the informed choice of abutment type in oral rehabilitation and to suggest improvements for future research.
2. Materials and Methods
The method used in this systematic revision met the PRISMA guidelines and was registered at PROSPERO (ID:341060). The PICO strategy was used to build the research questions:
- Population: two-piece hybrid abutment (custom materials) with crown;
- Intervention: laboratory mechanical stress tests (duration/strength/frequency);
- Comparison: one-piece hybrid abutment (custom materials) with crown;
- Outcome: hybrid abutment integrity or fracture rates.
This revision aims to evaluate the mechanical resilience of the hybrid abutments with crowns to in vitro mechanical stress tests.
2.1. Search Strategy
The research strategy included the electronic screening of English publications over the last 10 years on PubMed, Google Scholar, and B-on (included sources are listed at https://www.b-on.pt/colecoes/ (accessed on 1 August 2022)). The applied search algorithm was: “dental implant [MeshTerms] AND (hybrid abutment OR titanium base OR Ti-Base) AND crown AND zirconia AND (screw OR cemented)”.
The screening results were imported to Mendeley desktop citation manager software for deletion of replicates, and each of the remaining listings was selected if meeting the following criteria:
INCLUSION CRITERIA
- -
- Articles from the last 10 years;
- -
- English language;
- -
- One- or two-piece hybrid abutments;
- -
- Implant restoration;
- -
- In vitro studies.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
- -
- Dental restoration;
- -
- Cemented abutments;
- -
- Screwed abutments.
2.2. Quality Assessment
We assessed the selected articles’ risk of bias according to the following domains: (D1) specimen randomization; (D2) single-operator protocol implementation; (D3) description of the sample size calculation; (D4) blinding of the testing machine operator; (D5) the presence of a control group; (D6) failure mode evaluation; and (D7) use of all materials according to the manufacturer’s instructions. These domains were adapted from the Sarkis–Onofre quality assessment tool [].
2.3. Study Strategy
Two independent reviewers (L.F. and P.M.) first screened the titles and/or abstracts identified in the searches. The final selection of studies was independently performed by the same authors who reviewed the paper’s full text based on the inclusion criteria. Only studies that met the eligibility criteria were included for review. Discussion with a third reviewer (P.S.M.) resolved any disagreements or discrepancies.
3. Results
3.1. Search and Selection
A total of 75 articles were identified from all databases. No studies were identified from the grey literature. The Figure 1 flowchart summarizes the study selection process according to PRISMA. After removing duplicates, 61 manuscripts were identified for initial examination. Of these, 27 studies were excluded after titles and abstracts review. Two studies could not be retrieved for full-text analysis. Thus, 33 studies were chosen for full-text reading.
Figure 1.
Flowchart for the search strategy according to the PRISMA statement.
In Figure 2, we can observe that most studies compared one- or two-piece hybrid abutments of zirconia or lithium disilicate. Research on PICN and PEEK hybrid abutment is still scarce. The crowns used the most in these studies were built from lithium disilicate and zirconia. Only one study compared crowns made of hybrid ceramic against zirconia or lithium disilicate on different types of two-piece hybrid abutment materials. More studies about hybrid ceramics as hybrid abutment material are necessary to decide if it is a good alternative.
Figure 2.
Hybrid abutment pairwise network. The line strength is proportional to the number displayed next to the line representing the amount of research comparing each pair of hybrid abutments in the review.
3.2. Description of Included Studies
Table 1 shows that two types of hybrid abutments (one-piece and two-piece) were used in this study. Only 5 of 21 studies effectively compared one- and two-piece hybrid abutments. The most used materials for these studies were zirconia and lithium disilicate. However, some authors decided to use alternative materials such as PINC and PEEK [,]. Regarding the materials used in the crowns, lithium disilicate was the most studied for its aesthetics and strength. On the other hand, zirconia has also been widely studied for its strength characteristics []. The Multilink® Hybrid abutment was the most commonly used cement. However, other authors applied other resin types of cement. The abutment’s macrostructures of lithium disilicate were treated with hydrofluoric acid of different percentages. For the abutment’s macrostructures of zirconia, it was sandblasted with alumina particles in most cases or with alumina oxide particles. Due to the high heterogeneity of the pieces, used materials, and treatments, the quantitative results reported in articles were not extracted for meta-analysis. Other aspects related to the article’s results are dealt with within the Discussion section.
Table 1.
Detailed data regarding abutment type, material, treatment, and outcomes of the included studies.
3.3. Risk of Bias
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show that the 22 articles used in this systematic review had a very high risk of bias, with only one parameter (failure mode) presenting a rating above 75% of low risk of bias. The main cause for risk of bias was that, in most studies, the reported mechanical efficiency was based on testing only one specimen of each hybrid abutment type.
Figure 3.
Risk of bias summary plot.
Figure 4.
Risk of bias for included studies [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,].
4. Discussion
This systematic review enrolled hybrid abutments from in vitro studies. Many studies evaluated the resistance to fractures of materials with different kinds of hybrid abutments as a single piece or two-pieces with separated crowns. In these studies, the different kinds of materials for the crowns and the cementation protocols for the macrostructure of the titanium basis within the cementation of the crown above the macrostructure were also considered. Most authors have concluded that the zirconia hybrid abutment has the best fracture resistance. On the other hand, other authors, such as Elsayed et al. [] and Roberts et al. [], have reported that the disilicate lithium shows more fracture resistance and can be considered an alternative material to zirconia, especially in the anterior region with better aesthetic features. Nouh et al. [], in their study of the comparison of different kinds of abutments, have concluded that the hybrid crown one-piece design has more defects than the separated crown hybrid abutment, probably because, in the latter, there is more strength split, even though titanium bases of 3 mm cannot simulate the mastication. Therefore, the base of titanium should be considered [].
In studies with alternative materials such as PINC and PEEK, the authors have observed that the PINC material might not give enough fracture resistance due to the occlusal forces, even if it does not influence the titanium base or the screw [,]. PEEK shows more mechanical effort than zirconia regardless of the crown material. Therefore, PEEK shows a not significant difference in fracture resistance, even though it is considered an alternative material to zirconia [,]. In contradiction with previous studies, Al-Zordk et al. [] have shown that the zirconia has a better fracture resistance than PEEK. Pitta et al. have also observed that the zirconia has significantly higher values of the bending moment than disilicate lithium and PINC, but the desilicated lithium presents better retention than zirconia and PEEK [].
Regarding the differences between hybrid abutment types, Pitta et al. have observed in their study that the presence of a second interface between the hybrid abutment and the crown, and the absence of a canal for the screw on the abutments with separated crowns, can contribute to a better dissipation of the tension []. Tribst et al. [] have confronted the combinations of different types of abutment materials with the different types of crown materials. This study shows that the elastic modulus of the ceramic crowns associated with an inferior elastic modulus of the abutment shows a better distribution of overall tension, suggesting a promising mechanic performance. Ioannidis et al. have observed a disadvantage that occurs in these hybrid abutments: the interface of the cementation of the crown on the abutment presents a significant gap, which can contribute to the development of periodontal disease. The dimension of the gap is influenced by the material of the hybrid abutment and the kind of interface [].
In the in vitro studies, several authors observed different types of fractures or cementation failures during laboratory tests. These faults occurred mainly due to fracture of the titanium base, abutment fracture, failure of the cementation by deformation of the titanium base, and fracture of the crown. Nouh et al. [] observed more failures in one-piece than two-piece hybrid abutments during the chewing simulation test. Elshiyab et al. [] showed that the simulation of chewing over 5 years affected the resistance of different systems of fully ceramic crowns when submitted to implants, pointing out the mechanical and hydrothermal stress acceleration of the zirconia structures aging, and subsequently agreeing with the Bankoglu Gungor et al. study results []. Aziz et al. [] observed in their experiments that the fractures were present only in the crowns and did not affect the hybrid abutment. In the lithium disilicate hybrid abutment, catastrophic fractures in the crowns and abutment while under masticatory forces were observed in the premolars zone. Therefore, it is an alternative option for hybrid abutment material, but is not the best choice for the premolars.
As stated before, the choice regarding the hybrid abutment type, applied material, and treatment is traditionally dependent on the clinical case, particularly on where the hybrid abutment will be placed. This review highlighted and discussed the mechanical efficiency of the whole set as an additional aspect of major importance and the aspects of current research that still need to be corrected or addressed in future studies.
5. Conclusions
Our review results show the following:
- Hybrid abutments are an adequate choice when mechanical resistance is an important requirement for implants, especially in the presence of materials such as zirconia and lithium disilicate. PICN and PEEK one- or two-piece hybrid abutments need more study;
- Limited evidence supports better mechanical performance in two-piece hybrid abutments due to a more balanced strength distribution;
- Overall, research in this field is still scarce. Furthermore, it is necessary to carry out more studies on the gap between the macrostructure and the crown and how much it can affect the periodontal tissues and might be a risk factor for the development of peri-implantitis;
- The mechanical testing research on hybrid abutments needs to adhere more thoroughly to quality assessment guidelines for in vitro studies to prevent the high risk of bias found in current studies for future research.
Author Contributions
Writing—review and editing, L.F. and P.M. writing—review P.S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Ragauskaitė, A.; Žekonis, G.; Žilinskas, J.; Gleiznys, A.; Ivanauskienė, E.; Gleiznys, D. The comparison of cement-and screw-retained crowns from technical and biological points of view. Stomatologija 2017, 19, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Elshiyab, S.H.; Nawafleh, N.; Khan, U.; Öchsner, A.; George, R. Impact of coping veneering techniques on the survival of implant-supported zirconia-based-crowns cemented to hybrid-abutments: An-in-vitro study. Bioengineering 2020, 7, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tribst, J.P.M.; Dal Piva, A.M.O.; Özcan, M.; Borges, A.L.S.; Bottino, M.A. Influence of Ceramic Materials on Biomechanical Behavior of Implant Supported Fixed Prosthesis with Hybrid Abutment. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2019, 27, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mostafavi, A.S.; Mojtahedi, H.; Javanmard, A. Hybrid Implant Abutments: A Literature Review. Eur. J. Gen. Dent. 2021, 10, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cocchetto, R.; Canullo, L. The “hybrid abutment”: A new design for implant cemented restorations in the esthetic zones. Int. J. Esthet. Dent. 2015, 10, 186–208. [Google Scholar]
- Da Gama Ramos, G.; Ciotti, D.L.; Ferreira, S.R.W.; Margarido, M.R.W.F.; Dantas, R.A.; Guerreiro, M.N. The Use of a Hybrid Pillar and Its Importance for Aesthetic Rehabilitation and Tissue Stability: A Clinical Report. Case Rep. Dent. 2018, 2018, 6850720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehrke, P.; Abazari, C.; Schlichter, K.; Fischer, C.; Duddeck, D.; Romanos, G.E.; Weigl, P. Qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of processing-related surface contamination of oneand two-piece CAD/CAM abutments before and after ultrasonic cleaning. Materials 2020, 13, 3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, E.E.; Bailey, C.W.; Ashcraft-Olmscheid, D.L.; Vandewalle, K.S. Fracture Resistance of Titanium-Based Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Implant Restorations. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 27, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nouh, I.; Kern, M.; Sabet, A.E.; Aboelfadl, A.K.; Hamdy, A.M.; Chaar, M.S. Mechanical behavior of posterior all-ceramic hybrid-abutment-crowns versus hybrid-abutments with separate crowns—A laboratory study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019, 30, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zordk, W.; Elmisery, A.; Ghazy, M. Hybrid-abutment-restoration: Effect of material type on torque maintenance and fracture resistance after thermal aging. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2020, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkis-Onofre, R.; Skupien, J.A.; Cenci, M.S.; Moraes, R.R.; Pereira-Cenci, T. The role of resin cement on bond strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Oper. Dent. 2014, 39, E31–E44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ongun, S.; Kurtulmus-Yilmaz, S.; Meriç, G.; Ulusoy, M. A comparative study on the mechanical properties of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material used for the fabrication of hybrid abutment. Materials 2018, 11, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bankoğlu Güngör, M.; Karakoca Nemli, S.; Yılmaz, H.; Aydın, C. Fracture resistance of different implant supported ceramic abutment/crown systems. Eur. Oral Res. 2019, 53, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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 Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elshiyab, S.H.; Nawafleh, N.; Öchsner, A.; George, R. Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: Zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2018, 10, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, A.H.; Sallam, H.I.; Sami, R.N. Fracture resistance of e. Max CAD implant superstructures cemented on lithium disilicate hybrid abutments and zirconia hybrid abutments (an in-vitro study). Dent. J. 2019, 65, 110. [Google Scholar]
- Cárdenas, R.; Sánchez, D.; Euán, R.; Flores, A.M. Effect of fatigue loading and failure mode of different ceramic implant abutments. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atsü, S.S.; Aksan, E.; Bulut, A.C. Fracture Resistance of Titanium, Zirconia, and Ceramic-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Implant Abutments Supporting CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns After Aging. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2019, 34, 622–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antônio Barbosa-Júnior, S.; Rocha Pereira, G.K.; Serafini Dapieve, K.; Soares Machado, P.; Felipe Valandro, L.; Schuh, C.; Xediek Consani, R.L.; Bacchi, A. Mechanical Fatigue Analysis of PEEK as Alternative to Zirconia for Definitive Hybrid Abutments Supporting All-Ceramic Crowns. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 35, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honda, J.; Komine, F.; Kamio, S.; Taguchi, K.; Blatz, M.B.; Matsumura, H. Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-retained zirconia-based molar restorations. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 1119–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tribst, J.P.M.; Piva, A.M.D.O.D.; Borges, A.L.S.; Bottino, M.A. Influence of crown and hybrid abutment ceramic materials on the stress distribution of implant-supported prosthesis. Rev. Odontol. UNESP 2018, 47, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitta, J.; Hjerppe, J.; Burkhardt, F.; Fehmer, V.; Mojon, P.; Sailer, I. Mechanical stability and technical outcomes of monolithic CAD/CAM fabricated abutment-crowns supported by titanium bases: An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yazigi, C.; Kern, M.; Chaar, M.S.; Libecki, W.; Elsayed, A. The influence of the restorative material on the mechanical behavior of screw-retained hybrid-abutment-crowns. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 111, 103988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitta, J.; Hicklin, S.P.; Fehmer, V.; Boldt, J.; Gierthmuehlen, P.C.; Sailer, I.; Dent, M. Mechanical stability of zirconia meso-abutments bonded to titanium bases restored with different monolithic all-ceramic crowns. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 34, 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elsayed, S.; Elbanna, K. Effect of different fabrication materials and techniques on the retention of implant meso-structures to Ti-base abutments. Egypt. Dent. J. 2021, 67, 2567–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ioannidis, A.; Gil, A.; Hämmerle, C.; Jung, R.; Zinelis, S.; Eliades, G. Effect of Thermomechanical Loading on the Cementation Interface of Implant-Supported CAD/CAM Crowns Luted to Titanium Abutments. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2020, 33, 656–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spitznagel, F.A.; Bonfante, E.A.; Vollmer, F.; Gierthmuehlen, P.C. Failure Load of Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant-Supported Single Crowns Bonded to Ti-base Abutments versus to Customized Ceramic Abutments after Fatigue. J. Prosthodontics. 2021, 31, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burkhardt, F.; Pitta, J.; Fehmer, V.; Mojon, P.; Sailer, I. Retention forces of monolithic CAD/CAM crowns adhesively cemented to titanium base abutments—Effect of saliva contamination followed by cleaning of the titanium bond surface. Materials 2021, 14, 3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkhadashi, A.; Güven, M.; Erol, F.; Yıldırım, G. The Effect of Different Combinations of Surface Treatments and Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength between Titanium Alloy and Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2020, 40, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).