In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load

Jae Seon Kim, Ariel J. Raigrodski, Brian D. Flinn, Jeffrey E. Rubenstein, Kwok Hung Chung, Lloyd A. Mancl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem Although various zirconia abutments have been introduced, insufficient data exist regarding the maximum load capacity of internal tri-channel connection zirconia implant abutments with various implant-abutment interfaces. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the maximum load capacity of 3 different types of internal tri-channel connection zirconia abutments and to assess their mode of failure. Material and methods The study investigated 3 groups (n=20) of zirconia implant abutments with different implant-abutment interfaces. Group AllZr consisted entirely of zirconia (Aadva CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutment), group FrZr of a titanium insert friction-fitted to the zirconia abutment component (NobelProcera Abutment Zirconia), and group BondZr of a titanium insert bonded to the zirconia abutment component (Lava Zirconia abutment). All the abutments were thermal cycled for 20 000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Sixty test implants made of titanium (Dummy NobelReplace) were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and 60 zirconia copings (Lava Zirconia) with a uniform thickness of 2.0 mm were fabricated and bonded to the abutments. A universal testing machine was used to statically load all the specimens at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum load was recorded and used as the failure load. The fractured specimens were collected and representative specimens were studied with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons with the Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results The mean (SD) maximum load capacity was 484.6 (56.6) N for NobelProcera, 503.9 (46.3) N for Aadva, and 729.2 (35.9) N for Lava abutments. The maximum load capacity of Lava abutments was significantly higher than that of Aadva or NobelProcera (P< 05). No significant difference between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments was noted. The mode of failure among the Aadva, NobelProcera, and Lava abutments was different. Conclusions With standard diameter internal tri-channel connection implants, the maximum load capacity of the Lava abutment was significantly higher than that of the Aadva or NobelProcera abutment. No significant difference in maximum load capacity was noted between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments. However, the fracture behavior of all 3 abutments was different.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)255-263
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume109
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2013

Fingerprint

Titanium
zirconium oxide
In Vitro Techniques
Computer-Aided Design
Acrylic Resins
Friction
Analysis of Variance
Hot Temperature
Electrons

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Kim, J. S., Raigrodski, A. J., Flinn, B. D., Rubenstein, J. E., Chung, K. H., & Mancl, L. A. (2013). In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 109(4), 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2

In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. / Kim, Jae Seon; Raigrodski, Ariel J.; Flinn, Brian D.; Rubenstein, Jeffrey E.; Chung, Kwok Hung; Mancl, Lloyd A.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 109, No. 4, 01.04.2013, p. 255-263.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, JS, Raigrodski, AJ, Flinn, BD, Rubenstein, JE, Chung, KH & Mancl, LA 2013, 'In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load', Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2
Kim, Jae Seon ; Raigrodski, Ariel J. ; Flinn, Brian D. ; Rubenstein, Jeffrey E. ; Chung, Kwok Hung ; Mancl, Lloyd A. / In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load. In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2013 ; Vol. 109, No. 4. pp. 255-263.
@article{e10d93b40a194d438d1d6546e4e8e0d8,
title = "In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load",
abstract = "Statement of problem Although various zirconia abutments have been introduced, insufficient data exist regarding the maximum load capacity of internal tri-channel connection zirconia implant abutments with various implant-abutment interfaces. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the maximum load capacity of 3 different types of internal tri-channel connection zirconia abutments and to assess their mode of failure. Material and methods The study investigated 3 groups (n=20) of zirconia implant abutments with different implant-abutment interfaces. Group AllZr consisted entirely of zirconia (Aadva CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutment), group FrZr of a titanium insert friction-fitted to the zirconia abutment component (NobelProcera Abutment Zirconia), and group BondZr of a titanium insert bonded to the zirconia abutment component (Lava Zirconia abutment). All the abutments were thermal cycled for 20 000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Sixty test implants made of titanium (Dummy NobelReplace) were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and 60 zirconia copings (Lava Zirconia) with a uniform thickness of 2.0 mm were fabricated and bonded to the abutments. A universal testing machine was used to statically load all the specimens at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum load was recorded and used as the failure load. The fractured specimens were collected and representative specimens were studied with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons with the Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results The mean (SD) maximum load capacity was 484.6 (56.6) N for NobelProcera, 503.9 (46.3) N for Aadva, and 729.2 (35.9) N for Lava abutments. The maximum load capacity of Lava abutments was significantly higher than that of Aadva or NobelProcera (P< 05). No significant difference between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments was noted. The mode of failure among the Aadva, NobelProcera, and Lava abutments was different. Conclusions With standard diameter internal tri-channel connection implants, the maximum load capacity of the Lava abutment was significantly higher than that of the Aadva or NobelProcera abutment. No significant difference in maximum load capacity was noted between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments. However, the fracture behavior of all 3 abutments was different.",
author = "Kim, {Jae Seon} and Raigrodski, {Ariel J.} and Flinn, {Brian D.} and Rubenstein, {Jeffrey E.} and Chung, {Kwok Hung} and Mancl, {Lloyd A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "109",
pages = "255--263",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In vitro assessment of three types of zirconia implant abutments under static load

AU - Kim, Jae Seon

AU - Raigrodski, Ariel J.

AU - Flinn, Brian D.

AU - Rubenstein, Jeffrey E.

AU - Chung, Kwok Hung

AU - Mancl, Lloyd A.

PY - 2013/4/1

Y1 - 2013/4/1

N2 - Statement of problem Although various zirconia abutments have been introduced, insufficient data exist regarding the maximum load capacity of internal tri-channel connection zirconia implant abutments with various implant-abutment interfaces. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the maximum load capacity of 3 different types of internal tri-channel connection zirconia abutments and to assess their mode of failure. Material and methods The study investigated 3 groups (n=20) of zirconia implant abutments with different implant-abutment interfaces. Group AllZr consisted entirely of zirconia (Aadva CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutment), group FrZr of a titanium insert friction-fitted to the zirconia abutment component (NobelProcera Abutment Zirconia), and group BondZr of a titanium insert bonded to the zirconia abutment component (Lava Zirconia abutment). All the abutments were thermal cycled for 20 000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Sixty test implants made of titanium (Dummy NobelReplace) were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and 60 zirconia copings (Lava Zirconia) with a uniform thickness of 2.0 mm were fabricated and bonded to the abutments. A universal testing machine was used to statically load all the specimens at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum load was recorded and used as the failure load. The fractured specimens were collected and representative specimens were studied with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons with the Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results The mean (SD) maximum load capacity was 484.6 (56.6) N for NobelProcera, 503.9 (46.3) N for Aadva, and 729.2 (35.9) N for Lava abutments. The maximum load capacity of Lava abutments was significantly higher than that of Aadva or NobelProcera (P< 05). No significant difference between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments was noted. The mode of failure among the Aadva, NobelProcera, and Lava abutments was different. Conclusions With standard diameter internal tri-channel connection implants, the maximum load capacity of the Lava abutment was significantly higher than that of the Aadva or NobelProcera abutment. No significant difference in maximum load capacity was noted between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments. However, the fracture behavior of all 3 abutments was different.

AB - Statement of problem Although various zirconia abutments have been introduced, insufficient data exist regarding the maximum load capacity of internal tri-channel connection zirconia implant abutments with various implant-abutment interfaces. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the maximum load capacity of 3 different types of internal tri-channel connection zirconia abutments and to assess their mode of failure. Material and methods The study investigated 3 groups (n=20) of zirconia implant abutments with different implant-abutment interfaces. Group AllZr consisted entirely of zirconia (Aadva CAD/CAM Zirconia Abutment), group FrZr of a titanium insert friction-fitted to the zirconia abutment component (NobelProcera Abutment Zirconia), and group BondZr of a titanium insert bonded to the zirconia abutment component (Lava Zirconia abutment). All the abutments were thermal cycled for 20 000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Sixty test implants made of titanium (Dummy NobelReplace) were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and 60 zirconia copings (Lava Zirconia) with a uniform thickness of 2.0 mm were fabricated and bonded to the abutments. A universal testing machine was used to statically load all the specimens at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum load was recorded and used as the failure load. The fractured specimens were collected and representative specimens were studied with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). One-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons with the Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results The mean (SD) maximum load capacity was 484.6 (56.6) N for NobelProcera, 503.9 (46.3) N for Aadva, and 729.2 (35.9) N for Lava abutments. The maximum load capacity of Lava abutments was significantly higher than that of Aadva or NobelProcera (P< 05). No significant difference between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments was noted. The mode of failure among the Aadva, NobelProcera, and Lava abutments was different. Conclusions With standard diameter internal tri-channel connection implants, the maximum load capacity of the Lava abutment was significantly higher than that of the Aadva or NobelProcera abutment. No significant difference in maximum load capacity was noted between Aadva and NobelProcera abutments. However, the fracture behavior of all 3 abutments was different.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875981641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875981641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2

DO - 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60054-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 23566607

AN - SCOPUS:84875981641

VL - 109

SP - 255

EP - 263

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 4

ER -