Fawaz M Alzoubi, Mohammad Y Sabti, Esra Alsarraf, Faris A Alshahrani, Steven J Sadowsky
{"title":"啮合基台与非啮合基台:评估微间隙和螺钉形态变化的体外研究。","authors":"Fawaz M Alzoubi, Mohammad Y Sabti, Esra Alsarraf, Faris A Alshahrani, Steven J Sadowsky","doi":"10.3390/dj12080265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the microgap size between engaging (E) and non-engaging (NE) abutments and screw morphology changes between E and NE abutments using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after cyclic loading (CL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six implants were arranged into four groups as follows: Group 1, single units with E abutments; Group 2, single units with NE abutments; Group 3, three-unit fixed partial dentures with a hemi-engaging design; and Group 4, three-unit FPDs with two NE abutments. The microgap was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. SEM was used to qualitatively evaluate screw morphology. The specimens were subjected to axial loading first and then lateral loading (30°) using the settings; one million cycles (1.0 × 10<sup>6</sup> cycles) for each loading axis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences detected in the microgap sizes between the E and NE abutment groups. In addition, there were no significant changes in the microgap sizes after CL in the E or NE abutment specimens. More damage to the screws was noticed after CL compared to before, with no difference in the patterns of damage detected between the E and NE abutments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference in microgap size was detected between the E and NE abutments. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in microgap size between the different prosthetic designs. From the SEM qualitative evaluation, there were similar screw morphology changes after CL between the E and NE abutments.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"12 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11354066/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology.\",\"authors\":\"Fawaz M Alzoubi, Mohammad Y Sabti, Esra Alsarraf, Faris A Alshahrani, Steven J Sadowsky\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj12080265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the microgap size between engaging (E) and non-engaging (NE) abutments and screw morphology changes between E and NE abutments using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after cyclic loading (CL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six implants were arranged into four groups as follows: Group 1, single units with E abutments; Group 2, single units with NE abutments; Group 3, three-unit fixed partial dentures with a hemi-engaging design; and Group 4, three-unit FPDs with two NE abutments. The microgap was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. SEM was used to qualitatively evaluate screw morphology. The specimens were subjected to axial loading first and then lateral loading (30°) using the settings; one million cycles (1.0 × 10<sup>6</sup> cycles) for each loading axis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences detected in the microgap sizes between the E and NE abutment groups. In addition, there were no significant changes in the microgap sizes after CL in the E or NE abutment specimens. More damage to the screws was noticed after CL compared to before, with no difference in the patterns of damage detected between the E and NE abutments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference in microgap size was detected between the E and NE abutments. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in microgap size between the different prosthetic designs. From the SEM qualitative evaluation, there were similar screw morphology changes after CL between the E and NE abutments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":\"12 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11354066/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080265\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究的目的是使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)比较周期性加载(CL)前后啮合基台(E)和非啮合基台(NE)之间的微间隙大小以及E和NE基台之间的螺钉形态变化:将36颗种植体分为以下四组:第 1 组,单个种植体与 E 型基台;第 2 组,单个种植体与 NE 型基台;第 3 组,三单元固定局部义齿与半固位设计;第 4 组,三单元固定局部义齿与两个 NE 型基台。使用体视显微镜对微间隙进行评估。扫描电镜用于定性评估螺钉形态。首先对试样进行轴向加载,然后使用设置对试样进行横向加载(30°);每个加载轴进行一百万次循环(1.0 × 106 次循环):结果:E和NE基台组之间的微间隙大小没有明显差异。此外,E 和 NE 基台试样在 CL 之后的微间隙大小也没有明显变化。CL后发现螺钉的损坏比CL前更严重,E和NE基台的损坏模式没有差异:结论:E基台和NE基台的微间隙大小没有明显差异。此外,不同修复体设计之间的微间隙大小也没有明显差异。从扫描电子显微镜的定性评价来看,E基台和NE基台在CL后的螺钉形态变化相似。
Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology.
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the microgap size between engaging (E) and non-engaging (NE) abutments and screw morphology changes between E and NE abutments using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after cyclic loading (CL).
Methods: Thirty-six implants were arranged into four groups as follows: Group 1, single units with E abutments; Group 2, single units with NE abutments; Group 3, three-unit fixed partial dentures with a hemi-engaging design; and Group 4, three-unit FPDs with two NE abutments. The microgap was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. SEM was used to qualitatively evaluate screw morphology. The specimens were subjected to axial loading first and then lateral loading (30°) using the settings; one million cycles (1.0 × 106 cycles) for each loading axis.
Results: There were no significant differences detected in the microgap sizes between the E and NE abutment groups. In addition, there were no significant changes in the microgap sizes after CL in the E or NE abutment specimens. More damage to the screws was noticed after CL compared to before, with no difference in the patterns of damage detected between the E and NE abutments.
Conclusions: No significant difference in microgap size was detected between the E and NE abutments. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in microgap size between the different prosthetic designs. From the SEM qualitative evaluation, there were similar screw morphology changes after CL between the E and NE abutments.