Search

Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess the surface micro-roughness and abutment adaptation of selective laser melting (SLM) implant abutments in comparison to cast and machined implant abutments., Methods: Forty abutment specimens were divided equally into four groups according to the fabrication technique as follows (n = 10), Machined Ti alloy abutments (Control), Cast CoCr abutments, SLM-CoCr abutments, and SLM-Ti alloy abutments. Forty internal connection implants (Ø 4.0 ×10 mm, Superline™, Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea) were mounted in clear acrylic resin. Fabricated abutments were assessed for surface micro-roughness using a 3D optical noncontact surface microscope. Vertical and horizontal adaptation of the abutment with implant interface was assessed by using Bruker micro-CT. Data was assessed using analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc comparison tests for all the variables except vertical misfit was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test. Pearson correlation was used to assess dependence between independent variable (surface roughness) and dependent variables (Horizontal misfit and vertical misfit)., Results: SLM-Ti abutments showed significantly rougher surface (p < 0.05) among the study groups. While SLM-CoCr abutments were smoother than Cast abutments with mean Ra of 1.30 ± 0.11 and 1.58 ± 0.17 μm, respectively (p < 0.05). For abutment adaptation, SLM-Ti abutments showed the highest horizontal misfit among the groups (p < 0.05). While, SLM-CoCr abutments (29.24 ± 11.11 μm) showed comparable (p > 0.05) horizontal misfit results with Cast (26.08 ± 3.93 μm) and machined (26.45 ± 7.33 μm) abutments. Comparable (p > 0.05) vertical misfit values between Cast CoCr (487.01 ± 40.34 μm), SLM-CoCr (358.38 ± 114.93 μm) and SLM-Ti (299.85 ± 172.88 μm) abutments were observed. A positive correlation was found between the surface roughness of the mating surfaces and abutment adaptation., Conclusion: SLM CoCr abutments exhibited low roughness and comparable abutment adaptation (vertically and horizontally) than cast (control) abutments. Therefore, SLM CoCr abutments should be clinically investigated as potential implant abutments for clinical use., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant abutment screw loosening is the most common prosthetic complication of implant-supported single crowns. However, few studies have objectively evaluated the effectiveness of different tightening protocols on reverse tightening values (RTVs)., Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the optimal tightening protocol for implant abutment screws with different screw materials., Material and Methods: Sixty implants from 2 implant systems (Keystone and Nobel Biocare) with different definitive screw materials were selected. One group used diamond-like carbon (DLC) coated screws (DLC Group), and the other used titanium nitride (TiN) screws (TiN Group). Each group consisted of 30 implants. The implants in each group were distributed randomly into 3 subgroups (n=10). The implants from both manufacturers were mounted in resin blocks by following a clinical component connection protocol: a cover screw was placed, then an impression coping, and finally an original manufacturer prefabricated abutment. The abutment screws were tightened to the manufacturer's recommended tightening value using 3 different protocols: tighten the screw once (1T); tighten the abutment screw to the recommended tightening value, wait 10 minutes, and then retighten (2T); and tighten the abutment screw to the recommended tightening value, countertighten, tighten, countertighten, and then tighten (3TC). RTVs were measured after 3 hours. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normal distribution of the data. The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to each system's group that was not normally distributed (P<.05). Where differences existed, a post hoc analysis using the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Flinger (DSCF) pairwise comparisons test was conducted., Results: No significant differences were found among the 3 different tightening groups in the TiN group (P>.05). However, significant differences were found among the 3 different tightening protocols in the DLC group (P<.05)., Conclusions: Abutment screw systems from different manufacturers behave differently with respect to how they are tightened. For the TiN screw group, statistically similar RTVs were found for the 3 tightening protocols. The most efficient tightening protocol for the DLC-coated screw was the 3TC-DLC., (Copyright © 2024 Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)