Assistant Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, PR China.
Research Associate, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, PR China.
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):143-150. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.015. Epub 2018 Jul 10.
Evidence for micromorphology and precision of fit of third-party prosthetic components compared with the original manufacturer's components is lacking.
The purpose of this in vitro pilot study was to evaluate the micromorphological differences among different commercial brands of zirconia, titanium, and gold abutments for dental implants in terms of tight surface contact.
The following abutments (n=3 per type) were preloaded on Straumann Bone Level implants according to the manufacturer's instructions for zirconia (Zr, Zr2, Zr3), titanium (Ti and Ti2), and gold (Gold 1, Gold 2). The micromorphology of the implant-abutment units was investigated by using scanning electron microscopy (original magnification ×10 to ×500) after microtome sectioning. After we calibrated, the length of the areas with tight contact (TC) (discrepancy ≤3 μm) was calculated at the level of conical connection (CC), lower internal connection (LIC), and screw threads (STs). The interexaminer agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficient(s) (ICC). One-way ANOVA was used for the overall comparison of the Zr groups, and the Student paired t test was used for pairwise comparisons of the abutments of the same group. After we adjusted for multiple comparisons, the significance level for the overall and pairwise comparisons of Ti and Gold groups was set at a P value of .008 and a P value of .003 for the Zr groups.
Major differences were found among the different abutment types in terms of design and extent of surface contact. The TC showed significant differences among the abutments of Zr group, depending on the side and level of evaluation (Zr1 > Zr2 > Zr3 on the left side for CC; Zr1, Zr2 > Zr3 on the right side for CC, and, Zr2 > Zr3 on the right side for LIC; P<.003). In Ti group, no significant differences were found (P>.008). The Gold and Gold 2 groups had significantly greater contact on the left side of CC (P<.008).
A difference in design of the abutments was apparent. The tight surface contact was significantly different among the examined abutments or abutment screws and the respective area of the inner surface of the implants.
缺乏第三方假体部件与原始制造商部件的微观形态和拟合精度的证据。
本体外初步研究的目的是评估不同商业品牌的氧化锆、钛和金牙种植体基台在紧密表面接触方面的微观形态差异。
根据制造商的说明，将以下基台（每种类型 3 个）预加载到 Straumann 骨水平种植体上：氧化锆（Zr、Zr2、Zr3）、钛（Ti 和 Ti2）和金（Gold 1、Gold 2）。使用扫描电子显微镜（原始放大倍数×10 至×500）在微切片后研究种植体-基台单元的微观形态。在我们校准后，计算在锥形连接（CC）、下部内连接（LIC）和螺纹（STs）水平处紧密接触（TC）（差异≤3μm）区域的长度。使用组内相关系数（ICC）评估组内一致性。使用单向方差分析对 Zr 组进行整体比较，使用学生配对 t 检验对同一组的基台进行两两比较。在调整了多重比较后，Zr 组的整体和成对比较的显著性水平设置为 P 值<.008，Ti 和 Gold 组的 P 值<.003。
不同基台类型在设计和表面接触程度方面存在显著差异。TC 显示 Zr 组基台之间存在显著差异，这取决于评估的侧面和水平（左侧 CC 为 Zr1>Zr2>Zr3；右侧 CC 为 Zr1、Zr2>Zr3，右侧 LIC 为 Zr2>Zr3；P<.003）。在 Ti 组中，未发现显著差异（P>.008）。Gold 和 Gold 2 组在 CC 的左侧具有更大的接触（P<.008）。
基台的设计存在差异。在受检基台或基台螺丝与种植体内部表面的相应区域之间，紧密的表面接触存在显著差异。
