##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

The study was designed to find out the effect of different angulations of monolithic Zirconia custom-made abutments on fracture resistance. In this experimental type in vitro study, a total of thirty implant analogs with a diameter of 4.3 mm and a length of 11.5 mm were obtained for the maxillary central incisor. A total of thirty abutments specimens in three groups- 0-degree, 15-degree, and 25-degree, ten in each group were fabricated with monolithic zirconium by CAD/CAM system. Each abutment was subjected to load until fracture in a Universal testing machine and data was collected to a data collection sheet. One-way ANOVA was done to compare the fracture load among the three groups and pairwise comparison was done by Tukey post hoc test. The statistical significance p-value was considered as less than 0.05. The range of fracture load of 0-degree, 15-degree, and 25-degree angulated abutments were 590.55-1305.43N, 755.89-1720.55N, and 496.68-820.88N respectively. The highest fracture resistance was shown in 15-degree angulated custom-made zirconium abutments with a mean ± SD of 1223.442 ± 317.771N and the lowest fracture resistance was shown in case 25-degree with a mean ± SD deviation of 653.139 ± 102.045N. The mean ± SD of the 0-degree abutment was 948.944±245.588N. 95% Confidence interval of the mean were 773.260-1124.627N, 996.122-1450.761N, and 580.140-726.137N were assessed in cases of 0-degree, 15-degree, and 25-degree respectively. The fracture load or fracture resistance among the three groups of custom-made monolithic zirconium abutments were significantly different. 15-degree angulated abutment had higher fracture resistance properties. straight abutment had more fracture resistance properties than that of 25-degree abutments, but less than 25-degree abutments.

References

  1. Palmer R. Introduction to dental implants. British Dental Journal. 1999; 187: 127-132
     Google Scholar
  2. Jemt T. Modified single and short span restorations supported by osseointegrated fixtures in the partially edentulous jaw. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1986; 55: 243-246.
     Google Scholar
  3. Warreth A, Fesharaki H, McConville R, McReynolds D. An introduction to single implant abutments. Dental Update. 2013; 40(1): 7-17.
     Google Scholar
  4. Susic I, Travar M, Susic M. The application of CAD/CAM technology in Dentistry. InIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2017 May 1 (Vol. 200, No. 1, p. 012020). IOP Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  5. Davidowitz G, Kotick P. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dental clinics of North America. 2011; 55: 559-70.
     Google Scholar
  6. Warreth A, Ibieyou N, O'Leary R, Cremonese M, Abdulrahim M. Dental implants: An overview. Dental Update. 2017; 44: 596-620.
     Google Scholar
  7. Korsch M, Walther W. Prefabricated Versus Customized Abutments: A Retrospective Analysis of Loosening of Cement-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015; 28: 522-526.
     Google Scholar
  8. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999; 20: 1-25.
     Google Scholar
  9. Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH, Mattiola A. Single-tooth implant reconstructions: esthetic factors influencing the decision between titanium and zirconia abutments in anterior regions. The European Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2007; 2: 296-310.
     Google Scholar
  10. Sadaqah N, Al-Wahadni A, Alhija EA. Implant abutment types: a literature review–Part 1. The Journal of Implant and Advanced Clinical Dentistry. 2010; 2(3): 93-99.
     Google Scholar
  11. Eger DE, Gunsolley JC, Feldman S. Comparison of angled and standard abutments and their effect on clinical outcomes: a preliminary report. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2000; 15(6): 819-823.
     Google Scholar
  12. Nothdurft FP, Doppler KE, Erdelt KJ, Knauber AW, Pospiech PR. Fracture behavior of straight or angulated zirconia implant abutments supporting anterior single crowns. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2011; 15: 157-63.
     Google Scholar
  13. Palacci P, Nowzari H. Soft tissue enhancement around dental implants. Periodontology. 2008; 47: 113-132.
     Google Scholar
  14. Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S, Wolkewitz M, Zhang Y, Strub JR. Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dental Materials. 2008; 24: 1556-1567.
     Google Scholar
  15. Camposilvan E, Flamant Q, Anglada M. Surface roughened zirconia: towards hydrothermal stability. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2015; 47: 95-106.
     Google Scholar
  16. Canullo L, Coelho PG, Bonfante EA. Mechanical testing of thin-walled zirconia abutments. Journal of Applied Oral Sciences. 2013; 21: 20-24.
     Google Scholar
  17. Chappuis V, Engel O, Reyes M, Shahim K, Nolte LP, Buser D. Ridge alterations post-extraction in the esthetic zone: a 3D analysis with CBCT. Journal of Dental Research. 2013; 92: 195S-201S.
     Google Scholar
  18. Coray R, Zeltner M, Ozcan M. Fracture strength of implant abutments after fatigue testing: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2016; 62: 333-346.
     Google Scholar
  19. Denry I, Kelly J. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dental Materials. 2008; 24: 299-307.
     Google Scholar
  20. Lan T-H, Pan CY, Liu P-H, Chou M. Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns on Four Occlusal Convergent Abutments in Implant Prosthesis. Applied Sciences. 2019; 9: 2585.
     Google Scholar
  21. Shabanpour R, Mousavi N, Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments with Different Diameters. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2015; 16: 613-618.
     Google Scholar
  22. Saker S, Al-Zordk W, Mutlu Ö. Resistance to Fracture of Zirconia Abutments with Different Angulations: Impact of Implant Platform Diameter. European Journal of Dentistry. 2020; 14: 10.
     Google Scholar
  23. Thulasidas S, Givan DA, Lemons JE, O'Neal SJ, Ramp LC, Liu PR. Influence of implant angulation on the fracture resistance of zirconia abutments. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015; 24(2) :127-135.
     Google Scholar
  24. Shabanpour R, Mousavi N, Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments with Different Diameters. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2015; 16(8): 613-618.
     Google Scholar
  25. Yi Y, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK. Comparison of CAD/CAM abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal type implant after cyclic loading: Axial displacement, removal torque, and tensile removal force. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2019; 11(6): 305-312.
     Google Scholar
  26. Zandparsa R, Albosefi A. An In Vitro Comparison of Fracture Load of Zirconia Custom Abutments with Internal Connection and Different Angulations and Thicknesses: Part II. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2016; 25(2): 151-155.
     Google Scholar
  27. Alghamdi HS, Jansen JA. The development and future of dental implants. Dental Materials Journal. 2020; 39(2): 167-172.
     Google Scholar
  28. Ülkü SZ, Kaya FA, Uysal E, Gulsun B. Clinical evaluation of complications in implant-supported dentures: a 4-year retrospective study. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research. 2017; 23: 6137.
     Google Scholar
  29. Murakami H, Igarashi K, Fuse M, Kitagawa T, Igarashi M, Uchibori S, et al. Risk factors for abutment and implant fracture after loading. Journal of Oral Sciences. 2020; 63(1): 92-97.
     Google Scholar
  30. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Park C-J, Zadrozny Ł, Scrascia R, ˙ Cicciù M. Implant Fracture: A Narrative Literature Review. Prosthesis. 2021; 3: 267-279.
     Google Scholar
  31. Katsavochristou A, Sierraalta M, Saglik B, Koumoulis D, George F, Razzoog M. Implant Angulation Effect on the Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Zirconia Custom Abutments: An In Vitro Study. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019; 29: 10.
     Google Scholar
  32. Ellakwa A, Raj, T, Ronaghi G, Martin, F, Klineberg I. Influence of implant abutment angulations on the fracture resistance of overlaying CAM-milled zirconia single crowns. Australian Dental Journal. 2011; 56: 132-40.
     Google Scholar
  33. El-Anwar M, AL-Azrag K, Ghazy M, Dawood L. Influence of implant-abutment angulations and crown material on stress distribution on central incisor: A 3D FEA. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences. 2015; 14: 323-329.
     Google Scholar
  34. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999; 20: 1-25.
     Google Scholar
  35. Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. Journal of Dentistry. 2007; 35: 819-826.
     Google Scholar
  36. Reich S, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The effect of finish line preparation and layer thickness on the failure load and fractography of ZRO2 Copings. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2008; 99: 369-376.
     Google Scholar
  37. Shirakura A, Lee H, Geminiani A, Ercoli C, Feng C. The influence of veneering porcelain thickness of all-ceramic and metal ceramic crowns on failure resistance after cyclic loading. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2009; 101: 119-127.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.