Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 3, 2016

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 2 | Issue 3/2016 27 F r a c t u r e r e s i s t a n c e o f p r o v i s i o n a l i m p l a n t - p r o s t h e t i c a b u t m e n t s Introduction In the field of dentistry, implant dentistry is one area that has undergone extensive development inrecentyears,owingtothehighdemandforthis treatment and constant innovation and research into new materials and attachments. Implant placementhasbecomethefirsttreatmentchoice for replacing missing teeth, particularly single teeth, because of the excellent clinical results confirmed by long-term research.1 Nowadays, esthetics is an important factor in judging the final outcome of dental treatment. In the case of implant dentistry, various factors influence es- thetics.Itisnotenoughtoplaceanatural-looking restoration with correct proportions and ad- equate color, for a successful outcome will also depend on management of the periimplant soft tissue.2 This is not always straightforward, asthe soft tissue is governed by multiple factors: the periodontal biotype, alveolar bone crest level, angle ofimplant insertion, depth ofimplant plat- form and level of the first point of bone-to- implant contact.3 Given this scenario, achieving optimalestheticresultsisacomplicatedprocess. A diverse range of techniques are available for soft-tissue management. From the prosthodon- tic perspective, provisionalprostheses are useful to help model the surrounding tissue and create aharmoniousprofilebeforeplacingthedefinitive restoration.4 Furthermore, provisional restor- ations help improve communication with the patient, as they offer the opportunity to view future outcomes.2 For all these reasons, dental professionals needto be aware ofthe different materials avail- able on the market, as well as their physical and chemical properties, for the correct fabrication ofbothprovisionalanddefinitiveprosthesesthat will achieve optimal esthetics and good peri- implant health.3–11 Provisional restoration can be useful as a diagnostic tool too, as it allows the dentist to assess the final outcome in advance and provides an opportunity to obtain the pa- tient’s feedback and opinion. Its main function is to guide and shape the soft tissue during he- aling and maturation, allowing the tissue to de- velop more quickly and suggest the definitive gingival shape.12–29 This study was designed with the following ob- jectives: – to analyze the deformation and fracture resis- tance of implant-supported provisional abut- ments made of different materials (titanium, PEEK and methacrylate) – to determine whether fatiguing prior to static loadtesting influencedfracture resistance and deformation of the abutments. Materials and methods M a t e r i a l s Forty Kohno internal hex connection implants (Sweden&Martina,DueCarrare,Italy)wereused (4.25 mm in diameter and 11.5 mm in length). Forty abutments were screwed on to the im- plants, 30 of which were provisional and ten definitive (n = 40). The abutments were divided intofourgroups (Table1): castable methacrylate provisional (CMP) abutments with a titanium base; PEEK (polyether ether ketone) provisional (PP) abutments with a machined titanium base; Grade III titanium provisional (TP) abutments; and Grade IVtitanium definitive (TD) abutments. Forty specimens were fabricated, each con- sisting ofan implant set in a 5 cm diameternylon cylinderwith epoxyresin (Exakto-Form, bredent, Senden, Germany). In order to simulate implant Table 1 Table 1 Specimen distribution by abutment type Group Abutment type Connection CMP Castable methacrylate provisional abutments with a machined titanium base Anti-rotational PP PEEK provisional abutments Anti-rotational TP Grade III titanium provisional abutments Anti-rotational TD Grade IV titanium definitive abutments Anti-rotational Volume 2 | Issue 3/201627

Pages Overview