PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the impact on the mechanical strength and failure patterns of implant-abutment complexes of choosing different abutment types, designs and manufacturers, aiding in selecting the optimal restorative solution. Stock and custom abutments from original and aftermarket suppliers were subjected to thermomechanical aging.
METHODS: Stock and custom abutments from the implant manufacturer (original) and a aftermarket supplier (nonoriginal) were connected to identical implants with internal connection. Custom abutments were designed in a typical molar and premolar design, manufactured using the workflow from the respective suppliers. A total of 90 implants (4 mm diameter, 3.4 mm platform, 13 mm length) equally divided across 6 groups (three designs, two manufacturers) underwent thermo-mechanical aging according to three different regimes, simulating five (n = 30) or 10 years (n = 30) of clinical function, or unaged control (n = 30). Subsequently, all samples were tested to failure.
RESULTS: During aging, no failures occurred. The mean strength at failure was 1009N ± 171, showing significant differences between original and nonoriginal abutments overall (-230N ± 27.1, p < .001), and within each abutment type (p = .000), favoring original abutments. Aging did not significantly affect the failure load, while the type of abutment and manufacturer did, favoring original and custom-designed abutments. The most common failure was implant bending or deformation, significantly differing between original and nonoriginal abutments and screws. All failure tests resulted in clinically unsalvageable implants and abutments.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, original abutments exhibited a higher mechanical strength compared to the nonoriginal alternative, regardless of the amount of simulated clinical use. Similarly, custom abutments showed higher mechanical strength compared to stock abutments. However, mechanical strength in all abutments tested was higher than average chewing forces reported in literature, thus components tested in this study can be expected to perform equally well in clinical situations without excessive force.
METHODS: Stock and custom abutments from the implant manufacturer (original) and a aftermarket supplier (nonoriginal) were connected to identical implants with internal connection. Custom abutments were designed in a typical molar and premolar design, manufactured using the workflow from the respective suppliers. A total of 90 implants (4 mm diameter, 3.4 mm platform, 13 mm length) equally divided across 6 groups (three designs, two manufacturers) underwent thermo-mechanical aging according to three different regimes, simulating five (n = 30) or 10 years (n = 30) of clinical function, or unaged control (n = 30). Subsequently, all samples were tested to failure.
RESULTS: During aging, no failures occurred. The mean strength at failure was 1009N ± 171, showing significant differences between original and nonoriginal abutments overall (-230N ± 27.1, p < .001), and within each abutment type (p = .000), favoring original abutments. Aging did not significantly affect the failure load, while the type of abutment and manufacturer did, favoring original and custom-designed abutments. The most common failure was implant bending or deformation, significantly differing between original and nonoriginal abutments and screws. All failure tests resulted in clinically unsalvageable implants and abutments.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, original abutments exhibited a higher mechanical strength compared to the nonoriginal alternative, regardless of the amount of simulated clinical use. Similarly, custom abutments showed higher mechanical strength compared to stock abutments. However, mechanical strength in all abutments tested was higher than average chewing forces reported in literature, thus components tested in this study can be expected to perform equally well in clinical situations without excessive force.
摘要：
目的：该研究旨在评估选择不同基台类型对种植体-基台复合体的机械强度和失效模式的影响，设计和制造商，帮助选择最佳的恢复性解决方案。来自原始和售后市场供应商的库存和定制基台进行了热机械老化。
方法：将植入物制造商（原装）和售后市场供应商（非原装）的库存和定制基台连接到具有内部连接的相同植入物上。定制基牙是在典型的磨牙和前磨牙设计中设计的，使用来自各自供应商的工作流程制造。总共90个植入物(直径4毫米，3.4mm平台,13毫米长）平均分为6组（三种设计，两家制造商)根据三种不同的方案进行了热机械老化，模拟5年(n=30)或10年(n=30)的临床功能，或未老化对照(n=30)。随后，所有样品均测试失败。
结果：在老化期间，没有发生故障。破坏时的平均强度为1009N±171，显示原始基台和非原始基台之间的显着差异（-230N±27.1，p<.001），在每种桥台类型(p=.000)内，偏爱原始基台。老化没有显著影响失效载荷，虽然基台的类型和制造商做了，偏爱原始和定制设计的基台。最常见的失败是植入物弯曲或变形，原始和非原始基台和螺钉之间有很大差异。所有失败测试均导致临床上无法挽救的植入物和基台。
结论：在本研究的局限性内，与非原始替代方案相比，原始基台表现出更高的机械强度，无论模拟临床使用量如何。同样，定制桥台显示出较高的机械强度相比，股票桥台。然而,所有测试基台的机械强度均高于文献中报道的平均咀嚼力，因此，在这项研究中测试的组件可以预期在临床情况下同样表现良好，而无需过度用力。
方法：将植入物制造商（原装）和售后市场供应商（非原装）的库存和定制基台连接到具有内部连接的相同植入物上。定制基牙是在典型的磨牙和前磨牙设计中设计的，使用来自各自供应商的工作流程制造。总共90个植入物(直径4毫米，3.4mm平台,13毫米长）平均分为6组（三种设计，两家制造商)根据三种不同的方案进行了热机械老化，模拟5年(n=30)或10年(n=30)的临床功能，或未老化对照(n=30)。随后，所有样品均测试失败。
结果：在老化期间，没有发生故障。破坏时的平均强度为1009N±171，显示原始基台和非原始基台之间的显着差异（-230N±27.1，p<.001），在每种桥台类型(p=.000)内，偏爱原始基台。老化没有显著影响失效载荷，虽然基台的类型和制造商做了，偏爱原始和定制设计的基台。最常见的失败是植入物弯曲或变形，原始和非原始基台和螺钉之间有很大差异。所有失败测试均导致临床上无法挽救的植入物和基台。
结论：在本研究的局限性内，与非原始替代方案相比，原始基台表现出更高的机械强度，无论模拟临床使用量如何。同样，定制桥台显示出较高的机械强度相比，股票桥台。然而,所有测试基台的机械强度均高于文献中报道的平均咀嚼力，因此，在这项研究中测试的组件可以预期在临床情况下同样表现良好，而无需过度用力。
