Abstract
(1) Background: The stability of the dental implant–abutment complex is necessary to minimize mechanical complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the behaviors of two internal connection type fixtures, manufactured by the same company, with different connection designs. (2) Methods: 15 implant–abutment complexes were prepared for each group of Osseospeed® TX (TX) and Osseospeed® EV (EV): 3 for single-load fracture tests and 12 for cyclic-loaded fatigue tests (nominal peak values as 80%, 60%, 50%, and 40% of the maximum breaking load) according to international standards (UNI EN ISO 14801:2013). They were assessed with micro-computed tomography (CT), and failure modes were analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) images. (3) Results: The maximum breaking load [TX: 711 ± 36 N (95% CI; 670–752), EV: 791 ± 58 N (95% CI; 725–857)] and fatigue limit (TX: 285 N, EV: 316 N) were higher in EV than those in TX. There was no statistical difference in the fracture areas (P > 0.99). All specimens with 40% nominal peak value survived 5 × 106 cycles, while 50% specimens failed before 105 cycles. (4) Conclusions: EV has improved mechanical properties compared with TX. A loading regimen with a nominal peak value between 40% and 50% is ideal for future tests of implant cyclic loading.
Highlights
Dental implants have been a fairly reliable and predictable treatment option for edentulous patients since their introduction [1]
The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical behaviors of two internal connection type dental implant fixtures with different connection designs manufactured by a single manufacturer
The thinnest areas, excluding assembly the most coronal portion of the fixture, were expectedelectron to be the microscope area (Figure of the3).intact implant–abutment using a field emission scanning initiation point of the crack; the initiation point was the first thread under the microthread, (SEM) (S-4700, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan)
Summary
Dental implants have been a fairly reliable and predictable treatment option for edentulous patients since their introduction [1]. Dental implants have been clinically and scientifically studied as a viable treatment option to restore the edentulous area [5,6,7], complications remain a big concern for clinicians. Complication of dental implants can be mainly classified as either biological or mechanical. Mechanical complications include loose abutment or screw, veneer or ceramic fracture, loss of retention, sinking down of abutment, and fracture of implant fixture, abutment, or screw [2]. Previous reports have demonstrated incidence rates of implant fixture fracture of 0.2–1.1% and abutment or screw fracture of 0.7–2.3% [2]. Fracture of implant fixture is a catastrophic complication, Materials 2019, 12, 3264; doi:10.3390/ma12193264 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
