Evaluation of two implant‐supported fixed partial denture abutment designs: Influence on screw surface characteristics

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo compare screw surface characteristics between hemi‐engaging and non‐engaging implant‐supported fixed partial denture (FPD) designs after cyclic loading.Materials and MethodsTwenty‐four implants measuring 4.3 × 10 mm were mounted on acrylic resin blocks. Specimens were divided into two groups. An experimental group included twelve 3‐unit FPD with a hemi‐engaging design; a control group included twelve 3‐unit FPDs with the conventional design of two non‐engaging abutments. Both groups were subjected to two types of cycling loading (CL), first axial loading, and then lateral loading at 30°. Load was applied to the units one million times (1.0 × 106 cycles) for each loading axis. Data on screw surface roughness in three locations and screw thread depth were collected before (BL) and after (AL) each loading type. Screw surface roughness was measured in μm using a mechanical digital surface profilometer and optical profiler. To evaluate screw thread depth in μm, an upright optical microscope Axio‐imager 2 was used. To confirm readings made from the optical microscope, four random samples were selected from each group for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. The effect of cyclic loading was evaluated by averaging values across the two screws within each specimen, then calculating difference scores (DL) between BL and AL (DL = AL – BL). Additional difference scores were computed between the non‐engaging screws in each experimental group specimen, and one randomly selected non‐engaging screw in each control specimen. This difference was referred to as the non‐engaging DL. Statistical significance was assessed using Mann‐Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).ResultsComparisons of DL and non‐engaging DL by loading type revealed one significant difference regarding surface roughness at the screw thread. Significantly greater mean changes were observed after axial loading compared to lateral loading regarding both DL (axial M = ‐0.36 ± 0.08; lateral M = ‐0.21 ± 0.09; U = 20; p = 0.003) and non‐engaging DL (axial M = ‐0.40 ± 0.22; lateral M = ‐0.21 ± 0.11; U = 29; p = 0.013). No significant differences in screw surface roughness in other sites or thread depth were found between the experimental and control abutment designs in DL or in non‐engaging DL. No significant differences were found for DL (axial U = 13, p = 0.423; lateral U = 9, p = 0.150;) or non‐engaging DL (axial U = 13, p = 0.423; lateral U = 18, p = 1.00).ConclusionsResults suggest that overall, changes in screw surface physical characteristics did not differ between hemi‐engaging and non‐engaging designs after evaluating screw surface roughness and thread depth before and after axial and lateral cyclic loading.