Assessment of reliability of CAD-CAM tooth-colored implant custom abutments.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Information is lacking about the fatigue resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) tooth-colored implant custom abutment materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the reliability of different types of CAD-CAM tooth-colored implant custom abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia (Lava Plus), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), and resin-based composite (Lava Ultimate) abutments were fabricated using CAD-CAM technology and bonded to machined titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium (Ti-6Al-4V) alloy inserts for conical connection implants (NobelReplace Conical Connection RP 4.3×10 mm; Nobel Biocare). Three groups (n=19) were assessed: group ZR, CAD-CAM zirconia/Ti-6Al-4V bonded abutments; group RC, CAD-CAM resin-based composite/Ti-6Al-4V bonded abutments; and group LD, CAD-CAM lithium disilicate/Ti-6Al-4V bonded abutments. Fifty-seven implant abutments were secured to implants and embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin according to ISO standard 14801. Static failure load (n=5) and fatigue failure load (n=14) were tested. Weibull cumulative damage analysis was used to calculate step-stress reliability at 150-N and 200-N loads with 2-sided 90% confidence limits. Representative fractured specimens were examined using stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy to observe fracture patterns. RESULTS: Weibull plots revealed ß values of 2.59 for group ZR, 0.30 for group RC, and 0.58 for group LD, indicating a wear-out or cumulative fatigue pattern for group ZR and load as the failure accelerating factor for groups RC and LD. Fractographic observation disclosed that failures initiated in the interproximal area where the lingual tensile stresses meet the compressive facial stresses for the early failure specimens. Plastic deformation of titanium inserts with fracture was observed for zirconia abutments in fatigue resistance testing. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly higher reliability was found in group ZR, and no significant differences in reliability were determined between groups RC and LD. Differences were found in the failure characteristics of group ZR between static and fatigue loading.

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

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.