INFLUENCE OF ABUTMENT MATERIAL, CEMENT THICKNESS, AND CROWN TYPE ON THE FINAL COLOR OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS.

The International journal of prosthodontics Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI:10.11607/ijp.8564

Hamiyet Kilinc, Fatma Ayse Sanal

{"title":"INFLUENCE OF ABUTMENT MATERIAL, CEMENT THICKNESS, AND CROWN TYPE ON THE FINAL COLOR OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS.","authors":"Hamiyet Kilinc, Fatma Ayse Sanal","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To evaluate the influence of abutment material, cement thickness, and crown type on the esthetics of implant supported restorations.Material and methods: In total, 60 specimens were prepared to represent six abutment groups: Group PA = pink-anodized Ti; Group GA = gold-anodized Ti; Group T = nonanodized Ti; Group H = hybrid (Ti + zirconia); Group P = PEEK (Ti + PEEK); and Group C = composite resin (control). Crown specimens (n = 120) were obtained from Vita Enamic (VE) and Vita Suprinity (VS). Two cement thicknesses (0.1 and 0.2 mm) were used. The color values of crown configura:ons were measured and ΔE00* values were calculated. Statistical analyses included were Shapiro Wilk, three-way ANOVA, and Tukey HSD tests (P ≤ .05).Results: Abutment (P < .001) and crown materials (P = .001) had a significant effect on ΔE00* values, while cement thickness did not. Groups PA and H resulted in significantly lower mean ΔE00* values than other abutments, whereas Group T revealed the highest. Unlike VS, cement thicknesses created a significant difference on the ΔE00* values for VE (P ≤.05).Conclusions: Pink-anodized Ti or hybrid abutments for VE and pink- or goldanodized Ti for VS seem to be better options, in terms of color change. Cement thickness of 0.1 mm resulted in higher ΔE00* value than 0.2 mm for VE (P ≤ .05).","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"37 5","pages":"211-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of abutment material, cement thickness, and crown type on the esthetics of implant supported restorations.

Material and methods: In total, 60 specimens were prepared to represent six abutment groups: Group PA = pink-anodized Ti; Group GA = gold-anodized Ti; Group T = nonanodized Ti; Group H = hybrid (Ti + zirconia); Group P = PEEK (Ti + PEEK); and Group C = composite resin (control). Crown specimens (n = 120) were obtained from Vita Enamic (VE) and Vita Suprinity (VS). Two cement thicknesses (0.1 and 0.2 mm) were used. The color values of crown configura:ons were measured and ΔE00* values were calculated. Statistical analyses included were Shapiro Wilk, three-way ANOVA, and Tukey HSD tests (P ≤ .05).

Results: Abutment (P < .001) and crown materials (P = .001) had a significant effect on ΔE00* values, while cement thickness did not. Groups PA and H resulted in significantly lower mean ΔE00* values than other abutments, whereas Group T revealed the highest. Unlike VS, cement thicknesses created a significant difference on the ΔE00* values for VE (P ≤.05).

Conclusions: Pink-anodized Ti or hybrid abutments for VE and pink- or goldanodized Ti for VS seem to be better options, in terms of color change. Cement thickness of 0.1 mm resulted in higher ΔE00* value than 0.2 mm for VE (P ≤ .05).

查看原文本刊更多论文

基台材料、骨水泥厚度和牙冠类型对种植体支持修复体最终颜色的影响。

目的：评估基台材料、骨水泥厚度和牙冠类型对种植体支持修复体美观的影响：共制备了 60 个样本，代表六组基台：PA 组；粉红阳极氧化 Ti；GA 组；金阳极氧化 Ti；T 组；非阳极氧化 Ti；H 组；混合（Ti +；氧化锆）；P 组；PEEK（Ti +；PEEK）；C 组；复合树脂（对照组）。牙冠样本（n =；120）来自 Vita Enamic (VE) 和 Vita Suprinity (VS)。使用了两种粘接剂厚度（0.1 毫米和 0.2 毫米）。测量牙冠配置的颜色值并计算 ΔE00* 值。统计分析包括 Shapiro Wilk、三方方差分析和 Tukey HSD 检验（P ≤ .05）：结果：基台（P < .001）和牙冠材料（P = .001）对 ΔE00* 值有显著影响，而骨水泥厚度没有影响。PA 组和 H 组的平均 ΔE00* 值明显低于其他基台，而 T 组则最高。与 VS 不同，水门汀厚度对 VE 的 ΔE00* 值产生了显著差异（P ≤.05）：结论：就颜色变化而言，粉红色阳极氧化钛或混合基台用于 VE，粉红色或金色阳极氧化钛用于 VS 似乎是更好的选择。对于 VE，0.1 毫米的水泥厚度比 0.2 毫米的水泥厚度产生的 ΔE00* 值更高（P ≤ .05）。

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

The International journal of prosthodontics

自引率

0.00%

发文量