Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Jun 2017

Fracture Strength of Standard and Small Diameter Prosthetic Abutments for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations

DDS, MSc,
DDS, MSc, PhD,
DDS, MSc, PhD, and
DDS, MSc, PhD
Page Range: 175 – 179
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00108
Save
Download PDF

This study tested the fracture strength of prosthetic abutments with different sizes and combinations to support a 5-implant milled framework with distal extension. Prosthetic abutments with different dimensions (4.8-mm diameter mini conical abutment and 3.5-mm diameter microconical abutment) were screwed to 5 threaded implants. The following groups were divided (n = 3): G1 with 5 miniconical abutments (standard size), G2 with 5 microconical abutments (small sized), G3 with a combination of 3 small sized abutments and 2 standard sized abutments, and G4 with a combination of 2 small sized abutments and 3 standard sized abutments. Standardized titanium frameworks for full-arch fixed dental prosthesis were milled with equidistant holes for each of the 5 implants and abutments. A loading point was selected at 18 mm away from both distal implants. A universal testing system was used for the fracture strength tests and load was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min on the previously described loading points until component fracture. Mean fracture strength for each group was statistically compared (α = 0.05). Prosthetic screws were the only fractured components for all tested groups. Mean fracture strength was: G1, 1130.22 N; G2, 1031.36 N; G3, 757.9 N; and G4 792.03 N (P < .05). All prosthetic abutments and combinations that were tested provide adequate fracture strength for clinical use. However, the combination of standard and small diameter abutments leads to lower fracture strength compared with when only standard sized prosthetic abutments were used, irrespective of the abutment diameter (4.8- or 3.5-mm).

<bold>
  <sc>Figure 1</sc>
</bold>
Figure 1

Prosthetic abutments tested in the study (left, standard diameter; and right, small diameter).


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 2</sc>
</bold>
Figure 2

Prosthetic abutment combinations that were tested (a–d: G1–G4, respectively).


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 3</sc>
  –5
</bold>
Figure 3 –5

Figure 3. Milled framework used for fracture strength testing. Figure 4. Fracture strength testing. Figure 5. Fractured prosthetic screws after fracture strength testing showing intact screws number 1 and 5.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: rtiossi@uel.br
  • Download PDF