Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 899  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2020  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 229-236

Comparative evaluation of the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials after cyclic loading – An in vitro study

1 Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, The Tamilnadu Dr MGR Medical University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Dr. Hariharan Ramakrishnan
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Uthandi, Chennai - 600 119, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_294_19

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To comparatively evaluate the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials with titanium implants after cyclic loading. Methodology: Two groups utilizing 20 titanium implants secured in resin blocks, in which 10 titanium implants are connected with titanium abutments (Group I, n = 10) and the other 10 titanium implants are connected with Polyether ether Ketone (PEEK) abutments (Group II, n = 10). Abutments are cyclically loaded for 550,000 cycles. Surface profilometry, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) are carried out for all the abutment in both Group I and Group II before and after cyclic loading. The abutment surface at the implant-abutment interface is analyzed for wear. Results: On comparison using independent “t”-test, it was found that the mean difference values of pre- and post-cyclic loading surface roughness (Ra value) of Group I (premachined titanium straight abutments) (−0.073 μm) was lower than the Group II test samples (premachined PEEK straight abutments) (−0.0004 μm), and this was found to be statistically insignificant (P = 0.272). SEM micrographs and EDS results also corroborate with the results of surface profilometry. Conclusion: The new concept in this study is Group II (PEEK abutments) are connected with titanium implants, to prove its compatibility and aesthetics. Within the limitations of the study, the surface roughness values before and after cyclic loading of two different abutment materials revealed that the wear resistance of titanium abutments is more than PEEK abutments, but the difference was found to be statistically insignificant.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded153    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal