Garine Wael N, Funkenbusch Paul D, Ercoli Carlo, Wodenscheck Joseph, Murphy William C
Eastman Dental Center, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14620, USA.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Nov-Dec;22(6):928-38.
The specific aims of this study were to measure the implant and abutment hexagonal dimensions, to measure the rotational misfit between implant and abutments, and to correlate the dimension of the gap present between the abutment and implant hexagons with the rotational misfit of 5 abutment-implant combinations from 2 manufacturers.
Twenty new externally hexed implants (n = 10 for Nobel Biocare; n = 10 for Biomet/3i) and 50 new abutments were used (n = 10; Procera Zirconia; Procera Alumina; Esthetic Ceramic Abutment; ZiReal; and GingiHue post ZR Zero Rotation abutments). The mating surfaces of all implants and abutments were imaged with a scanning electron microscope before and after rotational misfit measurements. The distances between the corners and center of the implant and abutment hexagon were calculated by entering their x and y coordinates, measured on a measuring microscope, into Pythagoras' theorem. The dimensional difference between abutment and implant hexagons was calculated and correlated with the rotational misfit, which was recorded using a precision optical encoder. Each abutment was rotated (3 times/session) clockwise and counterclockwise until binding. Analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were used to compare rotational misfit among groups (alpha = .05).
With respect to rotational misfit, the abutment groups were significantly different from one another (P < .001), with the exception of the Procera Zirconia and Esthetic Ceramic groups (P = .4). The mean rotational misfits in degrees were 4.13 +/- 0.68 for the Procera Zirconia group, 3.92 +/- 0.62 for the Procera Alumina group, 4.10 +/- 0.67 for the Esthetic Ceramic group, 3.48 +/- 0.40 for the ZiReal group, and 1.61 +/- 0.24 for the GingiHue post ZR group. There was no correlation between the mean implant-abutment gap and rotational misfit.
Within the limits of this study, machining inconsistencies of the hexagons were found for all implants and abutments tested. The GingiHue Post showed the smallest rotational misfit. All-ceramic abutments without a metal collar showed a greater rotational misfit than those with a metal collar.
本研究的具体目的是测量种植体和基台的六边形尺寸，测量种植体与基台之间的旋转不匹配度，并将基台与种植体六边形之间存在的间隙尺寸与来自2家制造商的5种基台 - 种植体组合的旋转不匹配度相关联。
使用20颗新的外六边形种植体（诺贝尔生物公司10颗；Biomet/3i公司10颗）和50个新基台（10个Procera氧化锆基台；10个Procera氧化铝基台；10个美学陶瓷基台；10个ZiReal基台；10个GingiHue柱ZR零旋转基台）。在进行旋转不匹配度测量前后，用扫描电子显微镜对所有种植体和基台的配合表面进行成像。通过将在测量显微镜上测量的种植体和基台六边形角与中心之间的x和y坐标代入毕达哥拉斯定理来计算距离。计算基台和种植体六边形之间的尺寸差异，并将其与旋转不匹配度相关联，旋转不匹配度使用精密光学编码器记录。每个基台以顺时针和逆时针方向旋转（每次3次）直至结合。使用方差分析和Student - Newman - Keuls检验比较各组之间的旋转不匹配度（α = 0.05）。
关于旋转不匹配度，除Procera氧化锆组和美学陶瓷组外（P = 0.4），基台组之间存在显著差异（P < 0.001）。Procera氧化锆组的平均旋转不匹配度为4.13±0.68度，Procera氧化铝组为3.92±0.62度，美学陶瓷组为4.10±0.67度，ZiReal组为3.48±0.40度，GingiHue柱ZR组为1.61±0.24度。种植体 - 基台平均间隙与旋转不匹配度之间无相关性。
在本研究的范围内，发现所有测试的种植体和基台的六边形加工不一致。GingiHue柱显示出最小的旋转不匹配度。无金属颈圈的全陶瓷基台比有金属颈圈的全陶瓷基台表现出更大的旋转不匹配度。
