Effect of different fabrication materials and techniques on the retention of implant meso-structures to Ti-base abutments | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 35, Volume 67, Issue 3 - Serial Number 4, July 2021, Page 2567-2585 PDF (2.15 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.78027.1651 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Shereen Elsayed  1; Khaled Elbanna2
| ||||
| 1Associate Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt. Associate Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics Division, Oral and Maxillofacial Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University | ||||
| 2Assistant Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics Division, Oral and Maxillofacial Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of material and manufacturing technique on retention of meso-structure to Ti-base after artificial thermo-cycling aging. Materials and Methods: Forty implant analogues were placed in resin moulds to which Ti-bases were screwed. Ti-bases were scanned, and abutments were designed using CAD/CAM software. Samples were divided into 5 equal groups according to material and technique of construction of meso-structure as follows: Group I (Zr CAD): CAD/CAM zirconia, Group II (E.max Press): Pressable lithium disilicate with 3D printed resin pattern, Group III (E.max CAD): CAD/CAM lithium disilicate, Group IV (PEEK CAD): CAD/CAM PEEK, Group V (PEEK Press): PEEK was directly pressed on the Ti-bases. Samples of each group were surface treated and cemented to respective Ti-bases according to manufacturers’ instructions. All samples were subjected to 10,000 thermal cycles between 5°C-55°C. Samples were subjected to pull-out retention test. The surfaces of Ti-bases and internal surfaces of abutments were photographed under high magnification to analyze the mode of failure. Results: Group II (E.max Press) showed highest pull-out values followed by group III (E.max CAD). Group V (PEEK press) showed the least values. Insignificant difference was found between group IV (PEEK CAD) and group I (Zr CAD). Conclusions: Lithium disilicate ceramics showed best results for both techniques. CAD/CAM zirconia and CAD/CAM PEEK abutments have comparable values. Pressing PEEK on Ti-Base without macro-retentive features is not a reliable alternative. More clinical trials are needed to confirm success of different materials and techniques used to construct meso-structures on Ti-base. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Implant abutments; Ti-Base; Lithium disilicate; Zirconia; PEEK | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 319 PDF Download: 673 |
||||
