de Vasconcelos John Eversong Lucena, de Matos Jefferson David Melo, Queiroz Daher Antonio, Lopes Guilherme da Rocha Scalzer, de Lacerda Bruna Caroline Gonçalves Vasconcelos, Bottino Marco Antonio, Turssi Cecilia Pedroso, Basting Roberta Tarkany, do Amaral Flávia Lucisano Botelho, França Fabiana Mantovani Gomes
Department of Implantology, College of Dentistry CECAPE, Juazeiro do Norte 63024-015, CE, Brazil.
Dental Research Center, São Leopoldo Mandic Institute, Campinas 13045-755, SP, Brazil.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Aug 3;15(15):5341. doi: 10.3390/ma15155341.
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of thermomechanical cycling (TMC) and type of abutment on the misfit and compressive strength of the implant−abutment interface. Forty 3.75-mm external hexagon implants with 25° angled abutments were divided into four groups (N = 10). Group A: overcast plus TMC; Group B: overcast without TMC; Group C: completely cast plus TMC; Group D: completely cast without TMC. Abutments were fixed to the implants with 32-Ncm torque, and groups A and C specimens were cyclically loaded at 80 N with 2 Hz for 1 million cycles. The misfit on the implant−abutment interface was evaluated by optical microscope (100×) and the compressive strength test was performed in a universal test machine. For statistical analysis, a two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test were used. There was no difference in misfit presented by all the abutments in the absence of TMC (p > 0.05). When TMC was performed, the completely cast abutments showed greater misfit than overcast ones (p = 0.001). Regarding compressive strength, irrespective of TMC performed, the overcast abutments showed higher compressive strength values than completely cast abutments (p = 0.003). Moreover, disregarding the type of abutment used, the absence of TMC provided higher compressive strength values (p < 0.001). It was concluded that thermomechanical cyclic loading aggravated the misfit, especially in completely cast abutments, regardless of material or fabrication technique, and reduced the compressive strength of the two types of abutments tested.
本研究旨在评估热机械循环（TMC）和基台类型对种植体-基台界面的不匹配度和抗压强度的影响。将40颗带有25°角基台的3.75毫米外六角种植体分为四组（N = 10）。A组：包埋加TMC；B组：包埋不加TMC；C组：全铸加TMC；D组：全铸不加TMC。用32 Ncm的扭矩将基台固定到种植体上，A组和C组的标本以80 N、2 Hz的频率循环加载100万次。通过光学显微镜（100×）评估种植体-基台界面的不匹配度，并在万能试验机上进行抗压强度测试。进行统计分析时，使用了双向方差分析和事后Tukey检验。在没有TMC的情况下，所有基台的不匹配度没有差异（p > 0.05）。当进行TMC时，全铸基台的不匹配度比包埋基台更大（p = 0.001）。关于抗压强度，无论是否进行TMC，包埋基台的抗压强度值都高于全铸基台（p = 0.003）。此外，不考虑所使用的基台类型，不进行TMC时的抗压强度值更高（p < 0.001）。得出的结论是，热机械循环加载加剧了不匹配度，特别是在全铸基台中，无论材料或制作技术如何，并且降低了所测试的两种基台的抗压强度。
