PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the settling of abutments into implants and the removal torque values (RTVs) before and after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five different implant-abutment connections were tested: Ext = external butt joint + two-piece abutment; Int-H2 = internal hexagon + two-piece abutment; Int-H1 = internal hexagon + one-piece abutment; Int-O2 = internal octagon + two-piece abutment; and Int-O1 = internal octagon + one-piece abutment. Ten abutments from each group were secured to their corresponding implants (total n = 50). All samples were tested in a universal testing machine with a vertical load of 250 N for 100,000 cycles of 14 Hz. The amount of settling of the abutment into the implant was calculated from the change in the total length of the implant-abutment sample before and after loading, as measured with an electronic digital micrometer. The RTV after cyclic loading was compared to the initial RTV with a digital torque gauge. Statistical analysis was performed at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: A multiple-comparison test showed specific significant differences in settling values in each group after 250 N cyclic loading (Int-H1, Ext < Int-H2 < Int-O2 < Int-O1). There were statistically significant decreases in RTVs after loading compared to the initial RTVs in the Int-H2 and Int-O2 groups. No statistically significant differences were found in the Ext, Int-H1, and Int-O1 groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated that the settling amount and RTV (loss of preload) after cyclic loading were specific to the abutment type and related to the design characteristics of the implant-abutment connection.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the settling of abutments into implants and the removal torque values (RTVs) before and after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five different implant-abutment connections were tested: Ext = external butt joint + two-piece abutment; Int-H2 = internal hexagon + two-piece abutment; Int-H1 = internal hexagon + one-piece abutment; Int-O2 = internal octagon + two-piece abutment; and Int-O1 = internal octagon + one-piece abutment. Ten abutments from each group were secured to their corresponding implants (total n = 50). All samples were tested in a universal testing machine with a vertical load of 250 N for 100,000 cycles of 14 Hz. The amount of settling of the abutment into the implant was calculated from the change in the total length of the implant-abutment sample before and after loading, as measured with an electronic digital micrometer. The RTV after cyclic loading was compared to the initial RTV with a digital torque gauge. Statistical analysis was performed at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: A multiple-comparison test showed specific significant differences in settling values in each group after 250 N cyclic loading (Int-H1, Ext < Int-H2 < Int-O2 < Int-O1). There were statistically significant decreases in RTVs after loading compared to the initial RTVs in the Int-H2 and Int-O2 groups. No statistically significant differences were found in the Ext, Int-H1, and Int-O1 groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated that the settling amount and RTV (loss of preload) after cyclic loading were specific to the abutment type and related to the design characteristics of the implant-abutment connection.
Authors: Ana Sofia Vinhas; Carlos Aroso; Filomena Salazar; Paula López-Jarana; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maria Beatriz Bello Taborda; Gabriela Sumie Yaguinuma Gonçalves; Cecília Alves de Sousa; Wirley Gonçalves Assunção Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2021-11-18