» Articles » PMID: 23684280

Fracture Resistance of Titanium and Zirconia Abutments: an in Vitro Study

Overview
Journal J Prosthet Dent
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2013 May 21
PMID 23684280
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Statement Of Problem: Little information comparing the fracture resistance of internal connection titanium and zirconia abutments exists to validate their use intraorally.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the fracture resistance of internal connection titanium and zirconia abutments by simulating cyclic masticatory loads in vitro.

Material And Methods: Twenty-two specimens simulating implant-supported anterior single crowns were randomly divided into 2 equal test groups: Group T with titanium abutments and Group Z with zirconia abutments. Abutments were attached to dental implants mounted in acrylic resin, and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) crowns were fabricated. Masticatory function was simulated by using cyclic loading in a stepped fatigue loading protocol until failure. Failed specimens were then analyzed by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and fractographic analysis. The load (N) and the number of cycles at which fracture occurred were collected and statistically analyzed by using a 2-sample t test (α=.05).

Results: The titanium abutment group fractured at a mean (SD) load of 270 (56.7) N and a mean (SD) number of 81 935 (27 929) cycles. The zirconia abutment group fractured at a mean (SD) load of 140 (24.6) N and a mean (SD) number of 26 296 (9200) cycles. The differences between the groups were statistically significant for mean load and number of cycles (P<.001). For the titanium abutment specimens, multiple modes of failure occurred. The mode of failure of the zirconia abutments was fracture at the apical portion of the abutment without damage or plastic deformation of the abutment screw or implant.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, 1-piece zirconia abutments exhibited a significantly lower fracture resistance than titanium abutments. The mode of failure is specific to the abutment material and design, with the zirconia abutment fracturing before the retentive abutment screw.

Citing Articles

The Fracture Resistance Comparison between Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments with and without Ageing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chmielewski M, Dabrowski W, Ordyniec-Kwasnica I Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(9).

PMID: 39329840 PMC: 11431843. DOI: 10.3390/dj12090274.


Comparison of fracture strength in implant supported zirconia-titanium base abutments.

Singh R, Patel T, Barui A, Verma M, Kerketta J, Majumder P Bioinformation. 2024; 20(6):665-668.

PMID: 39131539 PMC: 11312321. DOI: 10.6026/973206300200665.


Clinical Factors on Dental Implant Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Manfredini M, Poli P, Giboli L, Beretta M, Maiorana C, Pellegrini M Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 39056987 PMC: 11276356. DOI: 10.3390/dj12070200.


Comparison of De-Torque and Failure Load Evaluation of Selective-Laser-Sintered CoCr, CAD-CAM ZrO, and Machined Implant Abutment/Restoration.

Vohra F, Alsaif R, Khan R, Bukhari I Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(5).

PMID: 38790315 PMC: 11118100. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11050448.


An In Vitro Investigation of the Role of Implant Abutment Materials on the Fracture Resistance and Failure Mode of Implant-Supported Restorations.

Obulareddy V, Dixit A, Takhellambam V, Verma R, Deepyanti , Kumar S Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e54624.

PMID: 38529462 PMC: 10962928. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54624.