Scholarlink

Background <p>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries, abutment materials (Cobalt–Chromium and Zirconium), and cement types on the tensile strength of cement-retained implant-supported restorations in vitro.</p> Methods <p>A total of 240 BioHorizons implant analogues (5.7&#xa0;mm diameter) were used and initially divided into two groups based on the material: Cobalt–Chromium (Co–Cr) and Zirconium (Zr) (<i>n</i> = 120). Each material group was further divided into four subgroups according to abutment geometry (<i>n</i> = 30): Group C (no preparation), Group P (one wall), Group A (adjacent two walls), and Group O (opposite two walls). Subsequently, each geometry subgroup was divided into three subgroups (<i>n</i> = 10) according to the cement type: adhesive resin cement (ARC), and self-adhesive resin cement (SARC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Tests were carried out using a universal testing machine with a 0.5&#xa0;mm/min crosshead speed. Two-way Anova statistical test was performed with post-hoc Tukey test, with 0.05 significance.</p> Results <p>In the zirconia groups, Group O showed the highest retention (ARC: 695.27 ± 201.67&#xa0;N; SARC: 507.01 ± 80.00&#xa0;N; RMGIC: 389.42 ± 139.60&#xa0;N), with significant pairwise differences between ARC–SARC, ARC–RMGIC, and SARC–RMGIC. In the metal groups, ARC achieved the highest values, particularly in Group P (928.27 ± 167.81&#xa0;N) and Group C (822.15 ± 295.65&#xa0;N). RMGIC yielded the lowest retention in most geometries, differing significantly from ARC in all geometries and from SARC in Groups P and C. Abutment geometry had minimal influence on ARC and SARC in metal substructures (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05 for most comparisons) but significantly affected RMGIC retention (Group O vs. P, C ).</p> Conclusions <p>Retention of implant-supported restorations is strongly influenced by abutment geometry. Combining favorable geometry with high-performance cements in clinical practice is important.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Tensile strength of Co-Cr and Zr substructures on titanium abutments with different geometries

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月26日

查看全文
  • Zeynep Uzgur,
  • Nihal Özcan,
  • Saadet Atsü

摘要

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries, abutment materials (Cobalt–Chromium and Zirconium), and cement types on the tensile strength of cement-retained implant-supported restorations in vitro.

Methods

A total of 240 BioHorizons implant analogues (5.7 mm diameter) were used and initially divided into two groups based on the material: Cobalt–Chromium (Co–Cr) and Zirconium (Zr) (n = 120). Each material group was further divided into four subgroups according to abutment geometry (n = 30): Group C (no preparation), Group P (one wall), Group A (adjacent two walls), and Group O (opposite two walls). Subsequently, each geometry subgroup was divided into three subgroups (n = 10) according to the cement type: adhesive resin cement (ARC), and self-adhesive resin cement (SARC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Tests were carried out using a universal testing machine with a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Two-way Anova statistical test was performed with post-hoc Tukey test, with 0.05 significance.

Results

In the zirconia groups, Group O showed the highest retention (ARC: 695.27 ± 201.67 N; SARC: 507.01 ± 80.00 N; RMGIC: 389.42 ± 139.60 N), with significant pairwise differences between ARC–SARC, ARC–RMGIC, and SARC–RMGIC. In the metal groups, ARC achieved the highest values, particularly in Group P (928.27 ± 167.81 N) and Group C (822.15 ± 295.65 N). RMGIC yielded the lowest retention in most geometries, differing significantly from ARC in all geometries and from SARC in Groups P and C. Abutment geometry had minimal influence on ARC and SARC in metal substructures (p > 0.05 for most comparisons) but significantly affected RMGIC retention (Group O vs. P, C ).

Conclusions

Retention of implant-supported restorations is strongly influenced by abutment geometry. Combining favorable geometry with high-performance cements in clinical practice is important.