A comparative study on microgap of premade abutments and abutments cast in base metal alloys

Mechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia abutments at the implant-abutment interface: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Zirconia has become popular for dental implant abutments in the esthetic zone but can damage the implant connection interface. Studies have been conducted to compare zirconia abutments with conventional titanium abutments; however, a consensus or systematic review is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the performance of abutments made of zirconia and titanium in relation to wear and misfit at the implant-abutment interface.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science) were independently searched by 2 researchers for relevant studies published up to June 2021. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "Do zirconia abutments cause greater wear at the implant-abutment interface than titanium abutments under occlusal forces?" Eligible studies included in vitro studies that evaluated changes in the surface of external and/or internal connections and single and/or multiple, screwed and/or cemented prostheses rehabilitated with titanium and zirconia abutments submitted to mechanical cycling.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included for qualitative analysis. A total of 172 specimens were analyzed, 86 zirconia and 86 titanium abutments. In terms of wear on the implant connection surface, zirconia abutments caused more severe wear, more scratches, and more rounding of the hexagonal angles at the implant connection interface than titanium abutments. In terms of misfit at the connection interface, zirconia abutments showed greater misfit than titanium abutments.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia abutments produce more wear at the titanium implant connection interface, titanium abutments showed better fit to the implant connection interface, and the fit can be influenced by the abutment manufacturing method.

CAD/CAM Abutments in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Soft Tissue Stability

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing customized abutments are increasingly used in everyday clinical practice. Nevertheless, solid scientific evidence is currently lacking regarding their potential advantages in terms of soft tissue stability. The main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the soft tissue outcomes of prefabricated versus customized (CAD/CAM) abutments. The present review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020161875) and the protocol was developed according to the PRISMA statement. An electronic search was performed on three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central) up to May 2023. Data extraction was followed by qualitative and quantitative analysis of the included studies. Three randomized controlled clinical trials and three controlled clinical trials (number of patients = 230; number of dental implants = 230) with a follow-up of between 12 and 36 months were included. No significant differences were observed between prefabricated versus customized (CAD/CAM) abutments regarding midfacial mucosal recession, interproximal papillae and pink aesthetic score (PES) after 12 months. Conclusion: The potential benefits of CAD/CAM abutments on soft tissues should be better clarified in future investigations. The usage of customized CAD/CAM abutments in everyday clinical practice should be based on a careful case-by-case evaluation (CRD42020161875).

Physicochemical and microscopic characterization of implant-abutment joints

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.