The Effect of Implant Abutment Material of Titanium, Zirconia, and Polyether Ether Ketone on Prosthetic Screw Fracture Resistance
Abstract
Purpose: In this study, the fracture resistance of prosthetic screws was tested using abutments made of titanium, zirconia, and Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) on dental implants.
Materials and Methods: From Easy Implant by easy prod, France, dental implants with specified dimensions and prosthetic screws were purchased. Three different materials (Ti, Zr, and PEEK) were used for abutment preparation. The implant-abutment units were subjected to a constant vertical force using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) until the prosthetic abutment broke. The force that caused fracture was measured, and one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests were used to statistically analyze the data.
Results: For Titanium, Zirconia, and PEEK abutments, the mean fracture resistance (±standard deviation) was 727±31 N, 516±21 N, and 289±23 N, respectively. A substantial difference in fracture resistance was found between the various abutment materials according to the one-way ANOVA (p<.001). Zirconia showed much stronger fracture resistance than PEEK (p <0.05) and Titanium abutments demonstrated significantly higher resistance than both Zirconia and PEEK (p <0.01), according to post-hoc tests.
Conclusion: The type of the material affects the fracture resistance and fracture pattern of the implant abutment. Titanium, Zirconia, and PEEK abutments show different fracture resistance. Titanium requires more force to be fractured while polyether ether ketone shows less required force. This may affect the prosthetic screw fracture and affect the longevity of the implant.
2- E. Alexakou et al., “PEEK high performance polymers: A review of properties and clinical applications in prosthodontics and restorative dentistry,” Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent, vol. 27, pp. 113–121, (2019).
3- M. AL‐Rabab’ah, W. Hamadneh, I. Alsalem, A. Khraisat, and A. Abu Karaky, “Use of high performance polymers as dental implant abutments and frameworks: a case series report,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 365–372, (2019).
4- W. Al-Zordk, A. Elmisery, and M. Ghazy, “Hybrid-abutment-restoration: effect of material type on torque maintenance and fracture resistance after thermal aging,” International Journal of Implant Dentistry, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–7, (2020).
5- S. S. Atsü, E. Aksan, and A. C. Bulut, “Fracture Resistance of Titanium, Zirconia, and Ceramic-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Implant Abutments Supporting CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns After Aging.,” International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, vol. 34, no. 3, (2019).
6- M. Borga Dönmez, A. A. Diken Türksayar, E. Orkun Olcay, and S. M. Şahmalı, “Fracture resistance of single-unit implant-supportedcrowns: effects of prosthetic design and restorative material,” (2021).
7- A. L. de Melo Moreno, D. M. Dos Santos, A. P. de Magalhães Bertoz, and M. C. Goiato, “Abutment on Titanium-Base Hybrid Implant: A Literature Review,” European Journal of Dentistry, (2022).
8- G. Deste Gökay, G. Gökçimen, and R. Durkan, “EVALUATION OF BIOMECHANICAL EFFECTS OF PROSTHETIC COMPONENTS WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS ON THE ABUTMENT SCREW,” (2021).
9- M. B. Donmez, A. A. Diken Turksayar, E. O. Olcay, and S. M. Sahmali, “Fracture resistance of single‐unit implant‐supported crowns: effects of prosthetic design and restorative material,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 348–355, (2022).
10- M. A. Elkholy, “Biomechanical behavior of different implant abutment materials,” Egyptian Dental Journal, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 3381–3391, (2021).
11- M. Emam and A. M. Arafa, “Stress distribution and fracture resistance of green reprocessed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) single implant crown restorations compared to unreprocessed PEEK and Zirconia: an in-vitro study,” BMC Oral Health, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–8, (2023).
12- R. Eraslan, E. D. Colpak, K. Kilic, and Z. A. Polat, “Biomechanical Properties and Biocompatibility of Implant-Supported Full Arch Fixed Prosthesis Substructural Materials,” Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, vol. 24, no. 9, p. 1373, (2021).
13- R. M. Galal, “Efficacy of Different Implant Abutment Materials on Stress Distribution (3D Finite Element Study),” EC Dental Science, vol. 19, pp. 1–7, 2020.
14- S. Gallo et al., “CAD/CAM abutments versus stock abutments: an update review,” Prosthesis, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 468–479, 2022.
15- R. Ghazal-Maghras, J. Vilaplana-Vivo, F. Camacho-Alonso, and Y. Martínez-Beneyto, “Properties of polyetheretheretherketone (PEEK) implant abutments: A systematic review,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, vol. 14, no. 4, p. e349, (2022).
16- G. D. Gökay, G. Gökçimen, and R. Durkan, “Evaluation Of Biomechanical Effects Of Prosthetic Components With Different Materials On The Abutment Screw,” Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 337–345, (2022).
17- I. Papathanasiou, P. Kamposiora, G. Papavasiliou, and M. Ferrari, “The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: A narrative review,” BMC Oral Health, vol. 20, pp. 1–11, (2020).
18- A. M. Alwan, D. Rokaya, G. Kathayat, and J. T. Afshari, “Onco-immunity and therapeutic application of amygdalin: A review,” Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 155–163, (2023), doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.12.010.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 12 No 4 (2025) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v12i4.19813 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Dental Implants Prosthetic Screws Fracture Resistance Titanium Zirconia Polyether Ether Ketone | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
