3.9 Article

Compatibility of Nonoriginal Abutments With Implants: Evaluation of Microgap at the Implant-Abutment Interface, With Original and Nonoriginal Abutments

期刊

IMPLANT DENTISTRY
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 289-295

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000885

关键词

compatible abutment; implant-abutment junction; internal connection; misfit; scanning electron microscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fit of nonoriginal abutments to implants at the implant abutment junction. Materials and Methods: Twenty titanium implants from a single manufacturer were randomly divided into 2 groups of ten each. Ten titanium premachined original abutments (group I) and ten titanium premachined nonoriginal abutments (from different manufacturerd-group II) were connected to the implants with the recommended manufacturer torque level and then embedded into autopolymerizing clear acrylic resin blocks. After overnight curing, these blocks were vertically sectioned using water jet sectioning machine and evaluated under scanning electron microscope following the sequential cleaning procedures. The microgap at the implant-abutment interface for all the samples was measured using pixel counting software and subjected to statistical analysis using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The mean microgap at the implant-abutment interface at the external, middle, and internal points was 1.597, 1.399, and 1.831 mm, respectively, for group I and 2.395, 2.488, and 3.339 mm, respectively, for group II samples. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test showed statistically significant difference between 2 groups at the midpoint for the nonoriginal abutments compared with the original ones. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, the mean microgap at the implant-abutment interface at the platform level at the external, middle, and internal points for both original abutments and nonoriginal abutments was found to be within clinically acceptable limits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据