Comparison of the Surface Roughness of CAD/CAM Metal-Free Materials Used for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study

The roughness of the intra-oral surfaces significantly influences the initial adhesion and the retention of microorganisms. The aim of this study was to analyze the surface texture of four different CAD-CAM materials (two high-performance polymers and two fifth-generation zirconia) used for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses (CAISPs), and to investigate the effect of artificial aging on their roughness. A total of 40 milled prostheses were divided into 4 groups (n = 10) according to their framework material, bio.HPP (B), bio.HPP Plus (BP), zirconia Luxor Z Frame (ZF), and Luxor Z True Nature (ZM). The areal surface roughness “Sa” and the maximum height “Sz” of each specimen was measured on the same site after laboratory fabrication (lab as-received specimen) and after thermocycling (5–55 °C, 10,000 cycles) by using a noncontact optical profilometer. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28.0.1. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparison tests (p = 0.05) and repeated measures ANOVA were used. After thermocycling, all materials maintained “Sa” values at the laboratory as-received specimen level (p = 0.24). “Sz” increased only for the zirconia groups (p = 0.01). B-BP exhibited results equal/slightly better than ZM-ZF. This study provides more realistic surface texture values of new metal-free materials used in real anatomical CAISPs after the manufacturing and aging processes and establishes a detailed and reproducible measurement workflow

Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant-Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study

This in vitro study aimed to assess the presence of microgaps at the implant-abutment interface in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments. Methods: Sixty conical connection dental implants were divided into two groups (n = 30). The control group consisted of three-unit bridge monolithic zirconia connected to two implants by a transepithelial abutment. The test group consisted of monolithic zirconia three-unit restoration connected to two implants directly by a titanium base (Ti-base) abutment. The sample was subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles at 5 °C to 55 °C, dwelling time 50 s) and chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N at frequencies of 2 Hz, at a 30° angle). The microgap was evaluated at six points (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) of each implant-abutment interface by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U tests (p > 0.05). Results: The SEM analysis showed a smaller microgap at the implant-abutment interface in the control group (0.270 μm) than in the test group (3.902 μm). Statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The use or not of transepithelial abutments affects the microgap size. The transepithelial abutments group presented lower microgap values at the interface with the implant than the Ti-base group in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, both groups had microgap values within the clinically acceptable range

Influence of the use of transepithelial abutments vs. titanium base abutments on microgap formation at the dental implant–abutment interface: an in vitro study

2023 Descuentos MDPIThis in vitro study aimed to assess the presence of microgaps at the implant-abutment interface in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments.Methods: Sixty conical connection dental implants were divided into two groups (n = 30). The control group consisted of three-unit bridge monolithic zirconia connected to two implants by a transepithelial abutment. The test group consisted of monolithic zirconia three-unit restoration connected to two implants directly by a titanium base (Ti-base) abutment. The sample was subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, dwelling time 50 s) and chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N at frequencies of 2 Hz, at a 30 degrees angle). The microgap was evaluated at six points (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) of each implant-abutment interface by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U tests (p > 0.05).Results: The SEM analysis showed a smaller microgap at the implant-abutment interface in the control group (0.270 mu m) than in the test group (3.902 mu m). Statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (p < 0.05).Conclusions: The use or not of transepithelial abutments affects the microgap size. The transepithelial abutments group presented lower microgap values at the interface with the implant than the Ti-base group in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, both groups had microgap values within the clinically acceptable range.Sociedad Española de Prótesis Estomatológica y EstéticaDepto. de Odontología Conservadora y PrótesisFac. de OdontologíaFac. de Ciencias FísicasTRUEpubDescuento UC