Comparison of CAD/CAM abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal type implant after cyclic loading: Axial displacement, removal torque, and tensile removal force
10.4047/jap.2019.11.6.305
- Author:
Yuseung YI
1
;
Seong Joo HEO
;
Jai Young KOAK
;
Seong Kyun KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital & Dental Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. heosj@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
CAD/CAM abutment;
Axial displacement;
Removal torque;
Tensile removal force;
Cyclic loading
- MeSH:
Friction;
Torque
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2019;11(6):305-312
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal connection type implants after cyclic loading.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted with internal type implants of two different manufacturers (Group Os, De). Fourteen assemblies were prepared for each manufacturer group and divided into 2 groups (n=7): prefabricated abutments (Os-P, De-P) and CAD/CAM abutments (Os-C, De-C). The amount of axial displacement and the removal torque values (RTVs) were measured before and after cyclic loading (10⁶ cycles, 3 Hz with 150 N), and the tensile removal force to dislodge the abutments was measured after cyclic loading. A repeated measures ANOVA and a pattern analysis based on the logarithmic regression model were conducted to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the axial displacement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney test was conducted for comparison of RTV reduction% and tensile removal forces.RESULTS: There was no significant difference between CAD/CAM abutments and prefabricated abutments in axial displacement and tensile removal force; however, significantly greater RTV reduction% after cyclic loading was observed in CAD/CAM abutments. The correlation among the axial displacement, the RTV, and the tensile removal force was not significant.CONCLUSION: The use of CAD/CAM abutment did not significantly affect the amount of axial displacement and tensile removal force, but presented a significantly greater removal torque reduction% than prefabricated abutments. The connection stability due to the friction at the abutment-implant interface of CAD/CAM abutments may not be different from prefabricated abutment.
