RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Implant-supported restorations have gained popularity in modern dentistry, and the choice of abutment material is crucial for their long-term success. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance and failure mode of implant-supported restorations using different abutment materials. METHODS: Ninety standardized implant-supported restorations were included in the study. Abutments made of titanium, zirconia, and a hybrid material (titanium base with a zirconia veneer) were evaluated. Standardized abutments were fabricated, and screw-retained restorations were fabricated using a resin-based composite material. Cyclic loading was applied using a universal testing machine to simulate masticatory forces. Fracture resistance was measured in terms of the number of cycles to failure (NCF), and failure modes were analyzed. RESULTS: The findings indicate that zirconia abutments exhibited higher fracture resistance compared to titanium and hybrid abutments. Longer implants demonstrated higher fracture resistance, suggesting improved stability and resistance to mechanical forces. Increased loading angles resulted in decreased fracture resistance of implant-supported restorations, emphasizing the need for proper occlusal adjustment. Central loading showed higher fracture resistance than lateral and posterior loading locations. The distribution of failure modes varied among the abutment materials, with bulk prosthesis fracture being the most common in the titanium group, while abutment fracture was predominant in the zirconia and hybrid groups. CONCLUSION: This in vitro study demonstrated that the choice of abutment material significantly influenced the fracture resistance and failure mode of implant-supported restorations. Zirconia abutments exhibited the highest fracture resistance, followed by hybrid and titanium abutments. The failure mode analysis revealed different patterns of failure for each abutment material.

RESUMEN

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the response of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and human gingival keratinocytes (HGKC) towards different dental implant abutment materials. Methods: Five materials were investigated: (1) titanium (Ti), (2) titanium nitride (TiN), (3) cobalt-chromium (CoCr), (4) zirconia (ZrO2), and (5) modified polyether ether ketone (m-PEEK). Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and seeded in accordance with the protocol of their supplier. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using colourimetric viability and cytotoxicity assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05 for all tests). Results: There was a statistically significant difference in cell proliferation of HGKC and HGFB cells in contact with different abutment materials at different time points, with no significant interaction between different materials. There was a significant effect on cell proliferation and cytotoxicity with different exposure times (p < 0.0001) for each material. Cell proliferation rates were comparable for both cell lines at the beginning of the study, however, HGFB showed higher proliferation rates for all materials at day 10 with better proliferation activities with ZrO and m-PEEK (40.27%) and (48.38%) respectively. HGKC showed significant interactions (p < 0.0001) in cytotoxicity between different materials. Conclusion: The present in vitro assessment investigated the biocompatibility of different abutment materials with soft tissue cells (HGFB and HGKC). The findings suggest that m-PEEK and TiN are biologically compatible materials with human cells that represent the soft tissue and can be considered as alternative implant abutment materials to Ti and ZrO2, especially when the aesthetic is of concern.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue response to implant abutments made of titanium, zirconia, zirconia veneered with feldspar ceramics and PEEK by various clinical, histological, microbiological, and molecular biological markers in an experimental model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 experimental one-piece healing abutments of four different materials were mounted on bone level implants in 20 volunteering patients (split-mouth design). After a three-month period of open healing, clinical parameters at the abutments were assessed and adjacent mucosa was sampled for inflammatory cytokine mRNA concentrations and histological analysis by a novel method. In addition, PISF samples were obtained for the analysis of periodonto-pathogenic bacteria counts and active MMP-8 levels. Marginal bone level change was measured by intra oral radiographs. RESULTS: Abutments of the different materials did not exhibit significant differences regarding clinical parameters, pathogenic bacteria counts or pro-inflammatory cytokine concentrations. Likewise, no significant differences were detected regarding soft tissue morphology or bone level change. Compared to titanium abutments, significantly less mononuclear inflammatory cells were detected in the mucosa at abutments made of zirconia veneered with feldspar ceramics. CONCLUSIONS: All examined abutment materials exhibited a similar soft tissue response compared to titanium and histological data did not reveal early signs of elevated inflammation caused by PEEK- and feldspar-veneered zirconia abutments. Due to the short observation period and the small sample size, a final conclusion on the long-term suitability of those abutment materials cannot be drawn. However, based on the presented data, we consider further studies on that subject as appropriate.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 discussions and consensus statements which provided the scientific evidence on the influence of biological parameters on implant-related clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The first publication was a systematic review on the biological effects of abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels and the second, a critical narrative review on how peri-implant diagnostic parameters correspond with long-term implant survival and success. The group evaluated the content of both publications, made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the consensus statements, clinical recommendations and recommendations for future research, which are described in this consensus report. RESULTS: Tested abutment materials can be considered appropriate for clinical use according to the observation period studied (mean 3.5 years). Mean peri-implant bone loss and mean probing pocket depths are not adequate outcomes to study the prevalence of peri-implantitis, while the reporting of frequency distributions is considered more appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Titanium is currently considered the standard of care as abutment material, although other materials may be more suitable for aesthetic locations. Peri-implantitis should be diagnosed through composite evaluations of peri-implant tissue inflammation and assessment of marginal bone loss with different thresholds.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical study was to describe outcome variables of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported, single-tooth restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 59 patients (mean age: 27.9 years) with tooth agenesis and treated with 98 implant-supported single-tooth restorations were included in this study. Two patients did not attend baseline examination, but all patients were followed for 3 years. The implants supported 52 zirconia, 21 titanium and 25 gold alloy abutments, which retained 64 all-ceramic and 34 metal-ceramic crowns. At baseline and 3-year follow-up examinations, the biological outcome variables such as survival rate of implants, marginal bone level, modified Plaque Index (mPlI), modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mBI) and biological complications were registered. The technical outcome variables included abutment and crown survival rate, marginal adaptation of crowns, cement excess and technical complications. The aesthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen Index Score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire. The statistical analyses were mainly performed by using mixed model of ANOVA for quantitative data and PROC NLMIXED for ordinal categorical data. RESULTS: The 3-year survival rate was 100% for implants and 97% for abutments and crowns. Significantly more marginal bone loss was registered at gold-alloy compared to zirconia abutments (P = 0.040). The mPlI and mBI were not significantly different at three abutment materials. The frequency of biological complications was higher at restorations with all-ceramic restorations than metal-ceramic crowns. Loss of retention, which was only observed at metal-ceramic crowns, was the most frequent technical complication, and the marginal adaptations of all-ceramic crowns were significantly less optimal than metal-ceramic crowns (P = 0.020). The professional-reported aesthetic outcome demonstrated significantly superior colour match of all-ceramic over metal-ceramic crowns (P = 0.015). However, no significant differences in the other aesthetic parameters at various restoration materials were registered. After 3 years, the patient-reported outcome variables at different restoration materials were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The biological outcomes at the zirconia and metal abutments were comparable. All-ceramic crowns demonstrated better colour match, but higher frequency of marginal discrepancy compared to metal-ceramic crowns. Generally, the patients noticed no difference in aesthetic outcome of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations.

Asunto(s)