A Comparative Study on Microgap of Premade Abutments and Abutments Cast in Base Metal Alloys

Lalithamma, Jaini Jaini; Mallan, Sreekanth Anantha; Murukan, Pazhani Appan; Zarina, Rita

doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-11-00163

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is in accordance with the results of Lalithamma et al (58) who found comparable results between ready-made titanium abutments and premachined cast gold with plastic sleeve abutments with no statistically significant difference between them.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Radiographic Assessment of Accuracy of Fit for Different Conical Connection Abutments on Tapered Implants

El-Sayed

Makke

Elbanna

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Radiographic Assessment of Accuracy of Fit for Different Conical Connection Abutments on Tapered Implants

El-Sayed

Makke

Elbanna

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Superior accuracy was observed between the original abutment and the implant in contrast with those found in the crown–implant and crown–abutment made from a cast component. Higher implant–abutment interface misfit has been reported when cast components are used (Lalithamma, Mallan, Murukan & Zarina, ). Rismanchian, Hatami, Badrian, Khalighinejad and Goroohi () compared different original abutments for Straumann implants, showing lower microgaps when abutments were machined than when they were cast.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Original vs. non‐original abutments for screw‐retained single implant crowns: An in vitro evaluation of internal fit, mechanical behaviour and screw loosening

Alonso-Pérez

Bartolomé

Ferreiroa

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the internal accuracy, mechanical behaviour under static load and screw loosening before and after cyclic loading of implant‐supported crowns restored with original components or with two compatible non‐original brands. Materials and Methods Sixty‐three dental implants were divided into three groups (n = 21 each): Group 1 used original components, and groups 2 and 3 used non‐original components. Internal accuracy was measured throughout a cross section of the sample groups (n = 8) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate the fit for implant–abutments, implant–crowns and crown–abutments. To evaluate load‐bearing capacity, eight samples from each group were loaded until fracture according to ISO Norm 14801. The removal torque value (RTV) was evaluated in the screws connecting the crown with the abutment and the abutment with the implant before and after cyclic loading (2 x 106 cycles) in five samples from each group. The data were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05). Results Statistically significant differences were found among the mean crown–abutment gaps measured in Group 1 (9.3 μm), Group 2 (45.4 μm) and Group 3 (44.9 μm). Higher values for mean load‐bearing capacity were found in Group 1 (1,098 N) than in groups 2 and 3 (1,057 and 973 N, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. Original abutment–implant screws exhibited lower percentages of torque reduction than the non‐originals. Conclusions Enhanced fit is expected when original components are used. The original abutments exhibited lower percentages of torque reduction after cyclic loading than non‐originals.

show abstract

“…Microgap sizes of the Morse taper connection at the implant–abutment joints measured in the present study ranged from 0.5 to 4.6 μm. Three previous studies reported the size of microgaps at the implant–abutment joints as follows: 0.75–15.48 mm,[ 12 ] 2–7 μm,[ 4 ] and 10–172 μm. [ 10 ] In addition, one study noted a rotational microgap component in degrees between abutment and implant hex from 1.21 to 2.79 degrees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That study noted the mean marginal microgaps for cast abutments – 15.48 mm for Ni-Cr, 14.06 mm for Co-Cr, and 12.38 mm for Grade 4 titanium – versus those for milled abutments – 7.51 mm for Ti6Al4V, 13.51 mm for stainless steel, and 0.75 mm for gold. [ 12 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicochemical and microscopic characterization of implant-abutment joints

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The purpose of this study was to investigate Morse taper implant–abutment joints by chemical, mechanical, and microscopic analysis.Materials and Methods:Surfaces of 10 Morse taper implants and the correlated abutments were inspected by field emission gun-scanning electron microscopy (FEG-SEM) before connection. The implant–abutment connections were tightened at 32 Ncm. For microgap evaluation by FEG-SEM, the systems were embedded in epoxy resin and cross-sectioned at a perpendicular plane of the implant–abutment joint. Furthermore, nanoindentation tests and chemical analysis were performed at the implant–abutment joints.Statistics:Results were statistically analyzed via one-way analysis of variance, with a significance level of P < 0.05.Results:Defects were noticed on different areas of the abutment surfaces. The minimum and maximum size of microgaps ranged from 0.5 μm up to 5.6 μm. Furthermore, defects were detected throughout the implant–abutment joint that can, ultimately, affect the microgap size after connection. Nanoindentation tests revealed a higher hardness (4.2 ± 0.4 GPa) for abutment composed of Ti6Al4V alloy when compared to implant composed of commercially pure Grade 4 titanium (3.2 ± 0.4 GPa).Conclusions:Surface defects produced during the machining of both implants and abutments can increase the size of microgaps and promote a misfit of implant–abutment joints. In addition, the mismatch in mechanical properties between abutment and implant can promote the wear of surfaces, affecting the size of microgaps and consequently the performance of the joints during mastication.

show abstract

A Comparative Study on Microgap of Premade Abutments and Abutments Cast in Base Metal Alloys

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Radiographic Assessment of Accuracy of Fit for Different Conical Connection Abutments on Tapered Implants

Radiographic Assessment of Accuracy of Fit for Different Conical Connection Abutments on Tapered Implants

Original vs. non‐original abutments for screw‐retained single implant crowns: An in vitro evaluation of internal fit, mechanical behaviour and screw loosening

Physicochemical and microscopic characterization of implant-abutment joints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About