BACKGROUND: Although increase of misfit has been reported when associating implant and abutment from different manufacturers, Procera® (Nobel Biocare™, Göteborg, Sweden) custom abutment has been universally used in clinical practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the vertical gap of zirconia Procera abutment associated with implants from the same manufacturer (Nobel Biocare) and two other implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four zirconia Procera abutments were produced using computer-assisted design and manufacture (CAD/CAM) and paired with (1) eight MK Iii RP 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Nobel Biocare) - GNB group; (2) eight Try on, 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Sistema de Implantes, São Paulo, Brazil) - ES group; and (3) eight Master screw, 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Conexão Sistema de Prótese, São Paulo, Brazil) - EC group. A comparison of the vertical misfit at the implant-abutment interface was taken at six measuring sites on each sample using scanning electron microscopy with a magnification of 408×. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for differences, and Tukey's test was used for pairwise comparison of groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences relative to average misfit were found when Procera abutments were associated with other implant manufacturers. The ES group and EC group did not differ significantly, but both demonstrated significantly larger average misfit than the GNB group (p = .001). The average misfit was 5.7 µm ± 0.39, 9.53 µm ± 0.52 and 10.62 µm ± 2.16, respectively, for groups GNB, ES, and EC. CONCLUSION: The association of Procera zirconia abutment with other implant systems different from its manufacturer demonstrated significant alteration of vertical misfit at implant-abutment interface.
BACKGROUND: Although increase of misfit has been reported when associating implant and abutment from different manufacturers, Procera® (Nobel Biocare™, Göteborg, Sweden) custom abutment has been universally used in clinical practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the vertical gap of zirconia Procera abutment associated with implants from the same manufacturer (Nobel Biocare) and two other implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four zirconia Procera abutments were produced using computer-assisted design and manufacture (CAD/CAM) and paired with (1) eight MK Iii RP 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Nobel Biocare) - GNB group; (2) eight Try on, 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Sistema de Implantes, São Paulo, Brazil) - ES group; and (3) eight Master screw, 4.1 × 10 mm implants (Conexão Sistema de Prótese, São Paulo, Brazil) - EC group. A comparison of the vertical misfit at the implant-abutment interface was taken at six measuring sites on each sample using scanning electron microscopy with a magnification of 408×. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for differences, and Tukey's test was used for pairwise comparison of groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences relative to average misfit were found when Procera abutments were associated with other implant manufacturers. The ES group and EC group did not differ significantly, but both demonstrated significantly larger average misfit than the GNB group (p = .001). The average misfit was 5.7 µm ± 0.39, 9.53 µm ± 0.52 and 10.62 µm ± 2.16, respectively, for groups GNB, ES, and EC. CONCLUSION: The association of Procera zirconia abutment with other implant systems different from its manufacturer demonstrated significant alteration of vertical misfit at implant-abutment interface.