Comparison of misfit and roughness of CAD-CAM ZrO, selective laser sintered CoCr and preformed Ti implant abutment crowns.

BACKGROUND

Marginal misfit and surface roughness of customized implant abutments is critical for restorative success. However, little is known about the comparison of misfit and surface roughness of CAD-CAM Zirconium oxide (ZrO), selective laser melting (SLM) Cobalt Chrome (CoCr) and preformed abutments. The aim of the study is to investigate the relation of misfit and micro-roughness of selective laser melting (SLM), preformed and CAD-CAM implant abutments.

METHODS

Thirty internal connection, endosseous dental implants (Ø 4.0 mm x 10 mm, Dentium) were mounted in Polymethyl methacrylate vertically. Ten preformed Titanium alloy (Ti) abutments with 1 mm soft tissue height and Ø 4.5 mm were included as controls. Ten each of Y-TZP and SLM-CoCr, abutment/crowns were fabricated using CAD-CAM milling (CAD-CAM-ZrO) and SLM techniques. Surface micro-roughness (Ra) of the fabricated implant abutment/crown was evaluated with a 3D optical non-contact microscope. All implant restorations were torqued to implants (30 Ncm) using a Tohnichi BTGE digital torque gauge and were analyzed with Bruker micro-CT (Skyscan 1173) to detect micro-gaps at pre-selected points at implant abutment interface. The Ra and misfit data were compared using ANOVA, Tukey-Kramer, Kruskal-Wallis test and Pearson correlation (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Mean Ra among SLM CoCr abutments [0.88 (0.09) µm] were lower than CAD-CAM-ZrO and higher than preformed Ti abutments. Horizontal misfit among SLM-CoCr [45.43 (9.41) µm] and preformed Ti [36.87 (13.23) µm] abutments was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Misfit was significantly higher in Y-TZP samples compared to SLM-CoCr (p = 0.031) and preformed Ti abutments (p = 0.01). Preformed Ti abutments showed significantly lower misfit compared to SLM-CoCr abutments (p = 0.01). A positive linear correlation was observed between the surface roughness (Ra) and vertical misfit (r = 0.61, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SLM CoCr abutments showed rough surface compared to preformed Ti abutments, while horizontal misfit was comparable among SLM-CoCr and preformed abutments. Misfit was significantly greater in Y-TZP abutments, compared to SLM and preformed abutments. SLM abutment fabrication technique needs further improvement to provide better fit and surface topography.