Comparative evaluation of the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials after cyclic loading - An in vitro study
Purpose: To comparatively evaluate the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials with titanium implants after cyclic loading. Methodology: Two groups utilizing 20 titanium implants secured in resin blocks, in which 10 titanium implants are connected with titanium abutments (Group I...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications,
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Purpose: To comparatively evaluate the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials with titanium implants after cyclic loading. Methodology: Two groups utilizing 20 titanium implants secured in resin blocks, in which 10 titanium implants are connected with titanium abutments (Group I, n = 10) and the other 10 titanium implants are connected with Polyether ether Ketone (PEEK) abutments (Group II, n = 10). Abutments are cyclically loaded for 550,000 cycles. Surface profilometry, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) are carried out for all the abutment in both Group I and Group II before and after cyclic loading. The abutment surface at the implant-abutment interface is analyzed for wear. Results: On comparison using independent "t"-test, it was found that the mean difference values of pre- and post-cyclic loading surface roughness (Ra value) of Group I (premachined titanium straight abutments) (−0.073 μm) was lower than the Group II test samples (premachined PEEK straight abutments) (−0.0004 μm), and this was found to be statistically insignificant (P = 0.272). SEM micrographs and EDS results also corroborate with the results of surface profilometry. Conclusion: The new concept in this study is Group II (PEEK abutments) are connected with titanium implants, to prove its compatibility and aesthetics. Within the limitations of the study, the surface roughness values before and after cyclic loading of two different abutment materials revealed that the wear resistance of titanium abutments is more than PEEK abutments, but the difference was found to be statistically insignificant. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | 0976-237X 0976-2361 10.4103/ccd.ccd_294_19 |