Comparative in vitro evaluation of microgap in titanium stock versus cobalt–chrome custom abutments on a conical connection implant: Effect of crown cementation and ceramic veneering

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1111/clr.14317

Federico Herrero-Climent, Francisco Martínez-Rus, María Paz Salido, David Roldán, Guillermo Pradíes

{"title":"Comparative in vitro evaluation of microgap in titanium stock versus cobalt–chrome custom abutments on a conical connection implant: Effect of crown cementation and ceramic veneering","authors":"Federico Herrero-Climent, Francisco Martínez-Rus, María Paz Salido, David Roldán, Guillermo Pradíes","doi":"10.1111/clr.14317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the implant–abutment connection microgap between computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled or laser-sintered cobalt–chrome custom abutments with or without ceramic veneering and titanium stock abutments with or without crown cementation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Six groups of six abutments each were prepared: (1) CAD/CAM cobalt–chrome custom abutments: milled, milled with ceramic veneering, laser-sintered, and laser-sintered with ceramic veneering (four groups: MIL, MIL-C, SIN, and SIN-C, respectively) and (2) titanium stock abutments with or without zirconia crown cementation (two groups: STK and STK-Z, respectively). Abutments were screwed to the implants by applying 30 Ncm torque. All 36 samples were sectioned along their long axes. The implant–abutment connection microgap was measured using scanning electron microscopy on the right and left sides of the connection at the upper, middle, and lower levels. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (<i>p</i> < .05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Mean values (μm) of the microgap were 0.54 ± 0.44 (STK), 0.55 ± 0.48 (STK-Z), 1.53 ± 1.30 (MIL), 2.30 ± 2.2 (MIL-C), 1.53 ± 1.37 (SIN), and 1.87 ± 1.8 (SIN-C). Although significant differences were observed between the STK and STK-Z groups and the other groups (<i>p</i> < .05), none were observed between the milled and laser-sintered groups before or after ceramic veneering. The largest microgap was observed at the upper level in all groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Titanium stock abutments provided a closer fit than cobalt–chrome custom abutments. Neither crown cementation nor ceramic veneering resulted in significant changes in the implant–abutment connection microgap.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 10","pages":"1286-1298"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14317","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare the implant–abutment connection microgap between computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled or laser-sintered cobalt–chrome custom abutments with or without ceramic veneering and titanium stock abutments with or without crown cementation.

Material and Methods

Six groups of six abutments each were prepared: (1) CAD/CAM cobalt–chrome custom abutments: milled, milled with ceramic veneering, laser-sintered, and laser-sintered with ceramic veneering (four groups: MIL, MIL-C, SIN, and SIN-C, respectively) and (2) titanium stock abutments with or without zirconia crown cementation (two groups: STK and STK-Z, respectively). Abutments were screwed to the implants by applying 30 Ncm torque. All 36 samples were sectioned along their long axes. The implant–abutment connection microgap was measured using scanning electron microscopy on the right and left sides of the connection at the upper, middle, and lower levels. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (p < .05).

Results

Mean values (μm) of the microgap were 0.54 ± 0.44 (STK), 0.55 ± 0.48 (STK-Z), 1.53 ± 1.30 (MIL), 2.30 ± 2.2 (MIL-C), 1.53 ± 1.37 (SIN), and 1.87 ± 1.8 (SIN-C). Although significant differences were observed between the STK and STK-Z groups and the other groups (p < .05), none were observed between the milled and laser-sintered groups before or after ceramic veneering. The largest microgap was observed at the upper level in all groups.

Conclusions

Titanium stock abutments provided a closer fit than cobalt–chrome custom abutments. Neither crown cementation nor ceramic veneering resulted in significant changes in the implant–abutment connection microgap.

查看原文本刊更多论文

锥形连接种植体上钛库存基台与钴铬定制基台微间隙的体外比较评估：牙冠粘结和陶瓷贴面的影响。

目的比较计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）铣制或激光烧结钴铬合金定制基台（带或不带陶瓷贴面）与钛合金基台（带或不带牙冠粘结）之间的种植体-基台连接微间隙：制备了六组基台，每组六个：(1) CAD/CAM 钴铬合金定制基台：铣削、铣削后陶瓷贴面、激光烧结和激光烧结后陶瓷贴面（四组：分别为 MIL、MIL-C、SIN 和 SIN-C）；(2) 粘接或不粘接氧化锆冠的钛库存基台（两组：分别为 STK 和 STK-Z）。基台以 30 Ncm 的扭力拧紧到种植体上。对所有 36 个样本沿长轴进行切片。使用扫描电子显微镜测量了种植体与基台连接处左右两侧上、中、下的微间隙。数据分析采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验（P 结果：微间隙的平均值（μm）分别为 0.54 ± 0.44（STK）、0.55 ± 0.48（STK-Z）、1.53 ± 1.30（MIL）、2.30 ± 2.2（MIL-C）、1.53 ± 1.37（SIN）和 1.87 ± 1.8（SIN-C）。虽然 STK 和 STK-Z 组与其他组之间存在明显差异（p 结论：STK 和 STK-Z 组的钛基底可提供更好的修复效果：钛基台比钴铬合金定制基台更密合。牙冠粘结和陶瓷贴面都不会导致种植体与基台连接微间隙的显著变化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.