Ragupathi Maniamuthu, Mahadevan Vallabh, Azhagarasan N S, Ramakrishnan Hariharan, Jayakrishnakumar S
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, The Tamilnadu Dr MGR Medical University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Contemp Clin Dent. 2020 Jul-Sep;11(3):229-236. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_294_19. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
To comparatively evaluate the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials with titanium implants after cyclic loading.
Two groups utilizing 20 titanium implants secured in resin blocks, in which 10 titanium implants are connected with titanium abutments (Group I, = 10) and the other 10 titanium implants are connected with Polyether ether Ketone (PEEK) abutments (Group II, = 10). Abutments are cyclically loaded for 550,000 cycles. Surface profilometry, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) are carried out for all the abutment in both Group I and Group II before and after cyclic loading. The abutment surface at the implant-abutment interface is analyzed for wear.
On comparison using independent ""-test, it was found that the mean difference values of pre- and post-cyclic loading surface roughness (Ra value) of Group I (premachined titanium straight abutments) (-0.073 μm) was lower than the Group II test samples (premachined PEEK straight abutments) (-0.0004 μm), and this was found to be statistically insignificant ( = 0.272). SEM micrographs and EDS results also corroborate with the results of surface profilometry.
The new concept in this study is Group II (PEEK abutments) are connected with titanium implants, to prove its compatibility and aesthetics. Within the limitations of the study, the surface roughness values before and after cyclic loading of two different abutment materials revealed that the wear resistance of titanium abutments is more than PEEK abutments, but the difference was found to be statistically insignificant.
比较评估两种不同种植体基台材料与钛种植体在循环加载后的耐磨性。
两组使用固定在树脂块中的20颗钛种植体,其中10颗钛种植体与钛基台相连(第一组,n = 10),另外10颗钛种植体与聚醚醚酮(PEEK)基台相连(第二组,n = 10)。对基台进行550,000次循环加载。在循环加载前后,对第一组和第二组的所有基台进行表面轮廓测量、扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和能量色散X射线光谱分析(EDS)。分析种植体-基台界面处的基台表面磨损情况。
使用独立t检验进行比较时发现,第一组(预加工钛直基台)循环加载前后表面粗糙度(Ra值)的平均差值(-0.073μm)低于第二组测试样品(预加工PEEK直基台)(-0.0004μm),且发现这在统计学上无显著意义(P = 0.272)。SEM显微照片和EDS结果也与表面轮廓测量结果相符。
本研究中的新概念是第二组(PEEK基台)与钛种植体相连,以证明其兼容性和美观性。在本研究的局限性内,两种不同基台材料循环加载前后的表面粗糙度值表明,钛基台的耐磨性高于PEEK基台,但发现差异在统计学上无显著意义。