The effect of implant alignments and abutment types on prosthesis framework fitness

• Main Authors: Jen-Hao Chen, 陳人豪
• Other Authors: Jau-Min Hong
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 1999
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/51141767794444345997

碩士 === 高雄醫學院 === 牙醫學研究所 === 87 === Osseointegrated implants present a significantly diminutive clinical mobility as compared to natural teeth. The ill-fitting implant framework may cause biologic complications of surrounding tissue or mechanical failures of implant system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the implant alignments and abutment types on framework fitness. Four Nobel Biocare implants were installed into master model parallely. Four designs of implant frameworks were constructed by two abutment types ( standard abutment and Estheticone abutment ) and two alignments ( straight-line configuration and tripodization configuration ). Specimen were fabricated by using conventional commercial laboratory procedure with palladium-silver alloy and centrifugal casting machine. Distortion variables of the centroids of three gold cylinders in each casting were measured by a 3-D coordinate measuring machine. Three orthogonal translational displacements ( dx, dy and dz ) and two rotational displacements ( dθx, dθz ) were obtained in each measurement of gold cylinder and used for statistic analysis of distortion pattern. The results : (1) Irrespective of abutment types and aligments, overall translational displacements were -3.49±1.27μm for dx, 24.49±5.46μm for dy, 10.63±5.15 μm for dz. Overall global translational displacement ( dR ) was 47.08±2.85 μm. And overall rotational displacements were 5.130±0.766°for dθx, 0.015±0.032°for dθz. (2) No significant difference was found between two abutment types, except dz of cylinder No.6. No significant difference was found between two alignment types, except dθz of cylinder No. 7 and overall-dθz. (3) Furthermore, dθz of cylinder No.6 showed significant difference between Estheticone and standard abutments in straight-line configuration alignment, dz of cylinder No.6, dθx of cylinder No.7 and overall dθz expressed significant difference between Estheticone and standard abutments in tripodization alignment. Otherwise, dz of cylinder No.6, dθx of cylinder No.7, dθz of No.6 and No.7, and overall dθz presented significant difference between straight-line configuration and tripodization alignments in standard abutment group. But no difference was found between straight-line configuration and tripodization alignments in Estheticone abutment group.