목적: 이 실험의 목적은 전치부 임플란트에 적용되는 지르코니아 지대주의 적절한 축벽의 두께를 평가하는 것이었다. 재료 및 방법: 시편들은 4가지의 서로 다른 두께로 제작되었으며, 일정하게 제작하고자 CAD/CAM 시스템을 이용하여 소결전 지르코니아 블록을 가공한 후 소결하였다. 가공된 시편들은 두께에 따라 Group 1 (0.5 mm), Group 2 (0.8 mm), Group 3 (1.0 mm), Group 4 (1.2 mm)의 4가지 그룹으로 분류되었다. 임플란트 시스템은 외부연결형(US, Osstem, Pussan, Korea) 을 이용하였다. 지대주 시편들은 시멘트 유지형 지대주를 복제하여 제작되었다. 크라운은 1.5 mm 의 두께로 CAD/CAM을 이용하여 제작되었다. 제작된 지대주 시편들을 임플란트에 고정시킨 후 레진시멘트(RelyXTM UniCem, 3M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany)를 이용하여 크라운을 합착하였다. 지르코니아 지대주의 파절을 측정하기 위해 만능시험기로 임플란트 장축에 30도의 각도로 힘을 가하였다. 결과: Group 1, Group 2, Group 3와 Group 4의 파절강도는 각각 $236.00{\pm}67.55N$, $599.00{\pm}15.80N$, $588.20{\pm}33.18N$, $97.83{\pm}98.13N$이었다. Group 1이 다른 그룹에 비해 통계학적으로 유의성 있게 낮은 강도를 보여주었다(independent Mann-Whitney U-test, P<.05). 나머지 Group 2, Group 3와 Group 4는 서로 통계학적으로 유의성을 보여주지 않았다(independent Mann-Whitney U-test, P>.05). 결론: 지르코니아 지대주는 파절에 저항하기 위해 적절한 두께를 필요로 한다. 이 실험의 결과로 판단할 때, 지르코니아 지대주가 전치부 임플란트에 적용되기 위해서는 0.8 mm 이상의 두께를 가져야 된다고 추천된다.
목적: 이 실험의 목적은 전치부 임플란트에 적용되는 지르코니아 지대주의 적절한 축벽의 두께를 평가하는 것이었다. 재료 및 방법: 시편들은 4가지의 서로 다른 두께로 제작되었으며, 일정하게 제작하고자 CAD/CAM 시스템을 이용하여 소결전 지르코니아 블록을 가공한 후 소결하였다. 가공된 시편들은 두께에 따라 Group 1 (0.5 mm), Group 2 (0.8 mm), Group 3 (1.0 mm), Group 4 (1.2 mm)의 4가지 그룹으로 분류되었다. 임플란트 시스템은 외부연결형(US, Osstem, Pussan, Korea) 을 이용하였다. 지대주 시편들은 시멘트 유지형 지대주를 복제하여 제작되었다. 크라운은 1.5 mm 의 두께로 CAD/CAM을 이용하여 제작되었다. 제작된 지대주 시편들을 임플란트에 고정시킨 후 레진시멘트(RelyXTM UniCem, 3M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany)를 이용하여 크라운을 합착하였다. 지르코니아 지대주의 파절을 측정하기 위해 만능시험기로 임플란트 장축에 30도의 각도로 힘을 가하였다. 결과: Group 1, Group 2, Group 3와 Group 4의 파절강도는 각각 $236.00{\pm}67.55N$, $599.00{\pm}15.80N$, $588.20{\pm}33.18N$, $97.83{\pm}98.13N$이었다. Group 1이 다른 그룹에 비해 통계학적으로 유의성 있게 낮은 강도를 보여주었다(independent Mann-Whitney U-test, P<.05). 나머지 Group 2, Group 3와 Group 4는 서로 통계학적으로 유의성을 보여주지 않았다(independent Mann-Whitney U-test, P>.05). 결론: 지르코니아 지대주는 파절에 저항하기 위해 적절한 두께를 필요로 한다. 이 실험의 결과로 판단할 때, 지르코니아 지대주가 전치부 임플란트에 적용되기 위해서는 0.8 mm 이상의 두께를 가져야 된다고 추천된다.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proper axial thickness of zirconia abutment applied to implant in the anterior region. Materials and methods: Zirconia abutments were prepared at different axial wall thickness by processing pre-sintered zirconia blocks via CAD/CAM to obtain equ...
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proper axial thickness of zirconia abutment applied to implant in the anterior region. Materials and methods: Zirconia abutments were prepared at different axial wall thickness by processing pre-sintered zirconia blocks via CAD/CAM to obtain equal specimens. The abutments were each produced with a thickness of 0.5 mm (Group 1), 0.8 mm (Group 2), 1.2 mm (Group 3), or 1.5 mm (Group 4). The implant used in this study was a external connection type one (US, Osstem, Pussan, Korea) product and the zirconia abutment was prepared via replication of a cemented abutment. The crowns were prepared via CAM/CAM with a thickness of 1.5 mm and were cemented to the abutments using $RelyX^{TM}$ UniCem cement. A universal testing machine was used to apply load at 30 degrees and measure fracture strength of the zirconia abutment. Results: Fracture strength of the abutments for Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 were $236.00{\pm}67.55N$, $599.00{\pm}15.80N$, $588.20{\pm}33.18N$, and $97.83{\pm}98.13N$, respectively. Group 1 showed a significantly lower value, as compared to the other groups (independent Mann-Whitney U-test. P.05). Conclusion: Zirconia abutment requires optimal thickness for fracture resistance. Within the limitation of this study, > 0.8 mm thickness is recommended for zirconia abutment in anterior implants.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proper axial thickness of zirconia abutment applied to implant in the anterior region. Materials and methods: Zirconia abutments were prepared at different axial wall thickness by processing pre-sintered zirconia blocks via CAD/CAM to obtain equal specimens. The abutments were each produced with a thickness of 0.5 mm (Group 1), 0.8 mm (Group 2), 1.2 mm (Group 3), or 1.5 mm (Group 4). The implant used in this study was a external connection type one (US, Osstem, Pussan, Korea) product and the zirconia abutment was prepared via replication of a cemented abutment. The crowns were prepared via CAM/CAM with a thickness of 1.5 mm and were cemented to the abutments using $RelyX^{TM}$ UniCem cement. A universal testing machine was used to apply load at 30 degrees and measure fracture strength of the zirconia abutment. Results: Fracture strength of the abutments for Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 were $236.00{\pm}67.55N$, $599.00{\pm}15.80N$, $588.20{\pm}33.18N$, and $97.83{\pm}98.13N$, respectively. Group 1 showed a significantly lower value, as compared to the other groups (independent Mann-Whitney U-test. P.05). Conclusion: Zirconia abutment requires optimal thickness for fracture resistance. Within the limitation of this study, > 0.8 mm thickness is recommended for zirconia abutment in anterior implants.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
가설 설정
15 Deformation of the screw and implant would occur after a fracture of the abutment. Even though the screw may deform within its range of elasticity, since the load does not decrease without a fracture in the abutment, the first decrease (point a) in load would be due to a crack from the abutment. The following decrease (point b) in load was observed as a deformation of the screw or implant.
제안 방법
Similar results were reported by Adatia et al.15In their study, internal connection type zirconia abutments were prepared using a diamond bur with a margin of 0 mm (control group), 0.5 mm, and 1 mm. The group with a 0.
Therefore, we evaluated the axial thickness of the zirconia abutment that can be applied for the external connection type implant restoration via measurement and analysis of fracture strength of the zirconia specimens.
대상 데이터
In this study, zirconia abutments were produced with a lateral wall thickness of 0.5 mm, 0.8 mm, 1.2 mm, and 1.5 mm. Prior to the experiment, an abutment with a lateral wall thickness of 0.
성능/효과
used internal connection type zirconia abutment without making a crown. Despite these differences, the results indicated that the external connection type abutment, which has ease in thickness control, has the higher fracture strength than the internal connection type abutment. Likewise, Glauser et al.
18 compared the strength of a zirconia abutment applied only with static load and a zirconia abutment applied with static load after occlusal load was applied 80,000 times. The results showed that the fracture strength of the abutment applied only when static load (672 N) was twice the value of the abutment applied static load after occlusal load. Based on these results, the fracture strength will decrease when occlusal forces are applied to the zirconia abutment.
후속연구
Dynamic forces act in various directions intra-orally. Further study is needed to observe the change in fracture strength of the dynamic load by applying static load after dynamic forces are applied.
참고문헌 (20)
Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:721-7.
Andersson B, Scharer P, Simion M, Bergstrom C. Ceramic implant abutments used for short-span fixed partial dentures: a prospective 2-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:318-24.
Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:635-41.
Andersson B, Glauser R, Maglione M, Taylor A. Ceramic implant abutments for short-span FPDs: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:640-6.
Aramouni P, Zebouni E, Tashkandi E, Dib S, Salameh Z, Almas K. Fracture resistance and failure location of zirconium and metallic implant abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:41-8.
Att W, Kurun S, Gerds T, Strub JR. Fracture resistance of singletooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:111-6.
Yildirim M, Edelhoff D, Hanisch O, Spiekermann H. Ceramic abutments--a new era in achieving optimal esthetics in implant dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:81-91.
Bressan E1, Paniz G, Lops D, Corazza B, Romeo E, Favero G. Influence of abutment material on the gingival color of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:631-7.
Rasperini G, Maglione M, Cocconcelli P, Simion M. In vivo early plaque formation on pure titanium and ceramic abutments: a comparative microbiological and SEM analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:357-64.
Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Scharer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:285-90.
Reich S1, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. The effect of finish line preparation and layer thickness on the failure load and fractography of $ZrO_2$ copings. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:369-76.
Gehrke P, Dhom G, Brunner J, Wolf D, Degidi M, Piattelli A. Zirconium implant abutments: fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening. Quintessence Int 2006;37:19-26.
Yang B1, Lange-Jansen HC, Scharnberg M, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Adelung R, Kern M. Influence of saliva contamination on zirconia ceramic bonding. Dent Mater 2008;24:508-13.
Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, DeLong R, Pintado MR. The wear of a posterior composite in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 1986;2:235-40.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.