ArticlePDF Available

Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Authors:

Abstract

Different materials have been used to develop abutments including titanium, that has shown excellent mechanical properties, however, in some cases aesthetics may be compromised. The titanium bases were developed to improve upon the disadvantages previously mentioned. The purpose of this narrative review was to describe the different kinds of titanium bases and their management in implant dentistry restorations. This review was done by performing a search up to May 2020 in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and LILACS and a total of 454 articles were found. After reading the abstract and title and full text, seventeen articles (n = 17) were included in the review. The reviewed literature assessed the use of titanium bases regarding its surface topography and their luting protocol, also whether does not interfere with the health of the tissues surrounding the implant, mechanical and aesthetic properties. Titanium bases are a predictable alternative in screw-retained or cement-retained implant restorations, the benefits in terms of aesthetics in the anterior region could be high. Keywords: Dental Implants; Implant Abutment; Titanium Base, Implant Dentistry, Review
Volume 3 Issue 9 September 2020
Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review
Luis Gabriel Ladino*, Angy Sanabria and Michael Cruz
Postgradaute Program of Prosthodontics, Insititución Universitaria Colegios de Colombia UNICOC, Colombia
*Corresponding Author: Luis Gabriel Ladino, Postgradaute Program of Prosthodontics, Insititución Universitaria Colegios de Colombia
UNICOC, Colombia.
Research Article
Received: July 24, 2020; Published: August 20, 2020
SCIENTIFIC ARCHIVES OF DENTAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2642-1623)
Abstract
Abbreviations
Keywords: Dental Implants; Implant Abutment; Titanium Base, Implant Dentistry, Review
Different materials have been used to develop abutments including titanium, that has shown excellent mechanical properties,
however, in some cases aesthetics may be compromised. The titanium bases were developed to improve upon the disadvantages
previously mentioned. The purpose of this narrative review was to describe the different kinds of titanium bases and their
management in implant dentistry restorations. This review was done by performing a search up to May 2020 in the following
databases: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and LILACS and a total of 454 articles were found. After reading the abstract and title
and full text, seventeen articles (n = 17) were included in the review. The reviewed literature assessed the use of titanium bases
regarding its surface topography and their luting protocol, also whether does not interfere with the health of the tissues surrounding
the implant, mechanical and aesthetic properties. Titanium bases are a predictable alternative in screw-retained or cement-retained

Cr-Co: Chrome-Cobalt; CAD/CAM: Computer Aided Design/Com-
puter Aided Manufacture; 10-MDP: 10-Methacryloyloxydecil Dihy-
drogen Phosphate
Introduction
Dental implants have become a predictable solution to replace
missing teeth, its success rates have been reported to be 97% at

prosthodontics is the abutment, which is the intermediate struc-
ture between the implant and the crown, it allows the retention of
the restoration and provides support [3].
Currently, various materials are available regarding abutments:
titanium, chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co), zirconia, and gold [4]. Titanium
and Cr-Co abutments have high resistance, however, they can cause
a grey shadow in the mucosa surrounding the implant, which can
-
ments were developed, which offer a better color match to natural
teeth because they have better light transmission [5,6], nonethe-
less, it can wear or fracture because of the implant platform [7-10].
The titanium bases appear as an alternative to avoid the possi-
ble fracture of the connection in zirconia abutments. Because of its
metal composition, the titanium bases provide optimal resistance,
allowing adequate stability and biocompatibility with adjacent soft
tissues [11,12]. These abutments are fabricated with a type V tita-
nium alloy. Some implant manufacturers offer an anodized coating
on their abutments, also, they offer two different designs, smooth
-
ing is of vital importance to the success of the restoration [13,14].
The titanium bases were designed because it was compatible
with CAD/CAM technology; it allows faster working times, and ac-
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
52
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
ceptable adaptation, creating the hybrid concept in abutments, in
which it can use a screw-retained or cement-retained system, that
could be indicated in the following clinical situations: (1) well-po-
sitioned implants ready for crown placement and (2) in tilted im-
plants, the position can be corrected with modifying the abutment
with burs and luting the customized coping followed by the crown,
in which case it’s not viable to recover [15].
The main advantage to titanium bases is that you can recover
the abutment and the crown, just like with the customized abut-
ments or any screw-retained system, because of it being cemented
extra orally it allows to remove any cement excess, thus avoiding
        

The central theme of the published articles related to abut-
ments is the mechanical behavior of them, including the connec-
tion and the type of restoration; however, the titanium bases re-
main understudied in the literature, this is likely associated to the
fact that this has been used for a short time in clinical situations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this narrative review was to describe the dif-
ferent kinds of titanium bases and their management in implant
dentistry.
Materials and Methods
An electronic search was carried out until May 2020 in Data-
bases: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and LILACS, using the key-
word “Titanium Bases”. Two reviewers selected all the titles and
abstracts obtained for possible inclusion. Full-text articles were
retrieved based on abstract selection; any disagreement provided
by the article information was resolved through discussion with a
third reviewer.
Results and Discussion
17 articles were selected, including 4 in vitro studies that evalu-
ated the biomechanical behavior of titanium bases with different
designs of restorations; 3 articles used monolithic ceramic crowns,
zirconia crowns, and zirconia cores with feldspathic ceramic coat-
ing; besides, one article evaluated transmucosal abutments at-
tached to titanium bases. 6 in vitro articles evaluated different pro-
tocols for luting, mechanical surface treatment (sandblasting with
aluminum oxide particles and tribochemical treatment), using self-
curing cement, and dual polymerization cement. 3 in vitro articles
evaluated the retention strength of ceramics to different abutments
among which they studied lithium disilicate, zirconia, and hybrid
ceramics cemented to a titanium base and prefabricated zirconia
and titanium abutments. One in vitro study evaluated different
margin designs (posterior conical, chamfer, and shoulder); a sin-
gle in vivo prospective randomized cohort study with a 12-month
follow-up where the behavior of titanium bases and titanium abut-
ments with peri-implant tissues was evaluated.
Mechanical behavior of titanium bases with different
restorations
Esthetic restorative CAD/CAM materials can generally be di-
vided into two main categories: ceramic and composite materials
[18]. Comparing both categories, composite restorations are stron-

allow easy occlusal adjustment [19]. In contrast, ceramic restora-
tions have better biocompatibility, superior aesthetics, greater
wear resistance and greater color stability [20]
Tribs., et al. [21], evaluated the stress distribution of cemented
ceramic crowns to titanium bases with different restorative tech-
niques, using 75 titanium bases with cone morse connection, di-
   
for 60 seconds and it is cemented to the titanium base and being
restored with a ceramic monolithic crown; second, monolithic ce-
ramic directly cemented to the titanium base which silane was ap-
plied to it for 60 seconds and monolithic crown cemented to the
titanium base with the access conduit which was conditioned with
         
sealed with composite resin. The analysis showed a high preva-
-
tion, this area is critical since it is close to the fulcrum point of the
crown and also because it has the thinner ceramic volume.
About fracture resistance, the esthetic restorative material of
choice is zirconia since it has been shown to have great mechanical
properties and that crowns can be manufactured in a monolithic
or layered way, and is, in turn, can be cemented on titanium either
for use in the posterior or anterior sector; but this type of resto-
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
53
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
ration generates unknowns on which have better mechanical be-
havior, therefore Elshiyab., et al. [22], carried out a study where
they evaluated 40 titanium bases; restoring 20 titanium bases

and 20 with layered crowns with zirconia copings using the IPS
e-max ceramic system (Ivoclar Vivadent) in the shape of a lower

50% survival rate within two years clinically simulated, compared
     -
           -

to massive fractures with lower masticatory loads, when multiple
implants are connected with a screwed restoration, there is a need
for the use of a transmucosal abutment to correct the differences
in positions of the implants and create a passive insertion pathway.
McGlumphy., et al. [23]; introduced the term “combined implant
crown” which was made up of a torqued titanium base on a trans-
mucosal abutment and is attached to the implant, although this
type of restorations is widely used in dentistry there is not enough
evidence-based data to investigate the mechanical failure of this
type of restorations. Heller., et al. [24], conducted a study using 36
straight transmucosal abutments restored by 18 with monolithic
zirconia crowns cemented to titanium bases, then torqued to the
transmucosal abutments and the other 18 placing the crown di-
rectly to the transmucosal abutment, reporting that the crowns
screwed to straight transmucosal abutments presented static max-
imum load resistance values of 872 Ncm; and at dynamic load, they
presented deformation, fracture of the transmucosal abutment,
        
the crowns cemented to titanium bases and then torqued to the
straight transmucosal abutment. presented values at static load,
of 718 Ncm. At the dynamic load, transmucosal abutment failures
and adhesive failures occurred. Therefore, both types of restora-
tions are viable treatments that do not represent a statistically sig-

et al. [25], evaluated 40 implants with a cone morse con-
nection, where half of the ceramic restorations were adhesively ce-
mented to conventional titanium bases, which were sandblasted
with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles, at a pressure of 2.5 bar for
10 seconds. At a distance of 10 mm, a pretreatment agent for tita-
nium conditioning (Alloy Primer - Kuraray) was applied and ce-
mented with Panavia 2.0 (Kuraray); the other half of the crowns
used an experimental titanium base with notches in the ceramic
restoration, all the samples were thermocycled and were restored
with a zirconia crown. For the notched group, the vertical mismatch
before aging was greater than after aging. 100% of the cemented
group restorations failed in the screw, and 100% of the notched

element simulation showed that both modalities presented a simi-
lar stress distribution on the external surface of the crown and the
threads of the implant.
An important factor to consider at the time of restoration is the
diameter of the implant platform, in a study by Zenthöfer., et al.
[26], where they compared the retention force of cemented zirco-
nia abutments to titanium bases on two different platform diam-
eters (4.8 and 6.5 mm), reporting that the greater disunity forces
are associated with a wider platform diameter.
A prosthetic treatment option when multiple teeth are lost is an
 
in the study by Kolbeck., et al. [27], evaluating the behavior of an
implant-tooth supported restoration supported with a zirconia
abutment cemented on a titanium base and a titanium abutment
compared to a tooth-supported prosthesis, found that the best dis-
-


Biological behavior of titanium bases
Bacterial microleakage between the different types of support-
ed implant prosthesis retention can affect peri-implant bone loss;
-
cording to the cementation technique adopted [28]. Excess cement
generates a biological complication that can act as a mechanical
irritant and bacteria deposit. Marginal peri-implant bone loss and

cement [29]. The titanium bases allow an extraoral control of the
cementation line, thus avoiding biological complications and giv-
ing greater long-term stability of the treatment. Pamato., et al. [30],
carried out a prospective randomized clinical study in 23 patients
where they placed 55 implants, divided into 2 groups, the control
group: cemented abutment (24 implants) and the study group: ti-
tanium base (28 implants). Clinical (probing bleeding and probing
depth) and radiographic (mesial, distal bone levels, and crown/im-
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
54
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
plant ratio) evaluations were performed at the time the implants
were loaded, at 6 months and 12 months. Bleeding at probing was

loss is associated with the antagonist and the place where the im-
plants were placed, the titanium bases did not interfere with the
health of the peri-implant tissues. In contrast, there is a study by
Asgeirsson., et al. [31], where they evaluated in 24 patients the
clinical, technical and aesthetic parameters of the zirconia abut-
ments with feldspar coating cemented on titanium bases, report-

was found in terms of technical and aesthetic results, but about
    
probing were evident.
Regarding peri-implant bone loss, there are studies by Linkevi-
cius., et al. [32] and Erhan., et al. [33], who found in radiographic
and tomographic parameters, the presence of less bone loss in
thick soft tissues and immediately loaded personalized abutments
compared to soft tissues and delayed-loaded abutments.
Luting protocol
Implant-supported and tooth-supported restorations can be
 
        
that in their content are largely made of a vitreous matrix that is
responsible for providing aesthetics, and 2) acid-resistant ceram-
ics that are formed in a large amount of crystalline phase to im-

between ceramic and titanium bases, such as the composition of
         
treatment, and adhesion mechanisms (chemical, mechanical, or
both). Therefore, it is important to select the ideal surface treat-
      
success of the restoration [35].
Among some studies, where they evaluate the effect of different
surface treatments, the research by Kemarly., et al. [36], where they
evaluated 90 titanium bases which were divided into three groups
of thirty each. Thirty of the titanium bases received no surface
treatment. Thirty were sandblasted with 50 um aluminum oxide
particles at 2.0 bar pressure and the remaining 30 titanium bases
were treated with tribochemical treatment at 2.0 bar pressure for
15 seconds. In each of the three groups of 30 titanium bases, 10
were conditioned with a universal primer on the bonding surface
for 60 seconds and dried, 10 were treated with a treatment agent to
condition the metal for 60 seconds and the remaining 10 received

for any of the three chemical treatments; Regarding mechanical
treatments, sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles was statis-

the surface treatment to be performed on the titanium base is the
topography it presents, since in a study by Celin Arce., et al. [13];
they evaluated 60 titanium bases that had 15 150-micron deep
grooves on the surface, which were subjected to different surface
treatments: adhesive containing the 10-MDP molecule, 15 titanium
bases were sandblasted with 50-micron aluminum oxide particles
for 20 seconds, 15 titanium bases were sandblasted with 50-micron
aluminum oxide particles for 20 seconds, and an adhesive contain-
ing the 10-MDP molecule was applied to the zirconia crowns and
15 titanium bases did not receive any surface treatment. Sandblast-
ing with 50-micron aluminum oxide particles is contraindicated in
this type of titanium bases since they seal the microgrooves affect-
ing the topography and decreasing the adhesion force, in terms
of surface treatment with an adhesive that contains the 10-MDP
molecule, demonstrated the highest values of adhesion. In another
study by Linkevicius., et al. [37], where they evaluated another type
of topography of the titanium bases, which presented a Laser Lock
surface treatment, comparing the retention force of two cementa-
tion protocols, one in which the titanium bases were sandblasted
with oxide particles 50-micron aluminum and another where no
surface treatment was made; reporting that the alumina particles
that remain on the surface of the titanium bases weaken the bond
strength between the titanium and the ceramic, recommending the
cementation of this type of titanium bases without any treatment
prior to cementation.
Another important factor during cementing is the type of ce-
ment; the investigations of Wiedenmann., et al. [38] and Gehrke.,
et al. [39], evaluated the behavior of zirconia abutments cemented
to titanium bases with different bonding agents: Multilink Hybrid
Abutment- Monobond Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent), Panavia F2.0 and V5
-
ly); which reported the highest values of adhesion in the Multilink
Hybrid Abutment-Monobond Plus bonding agent. In addition, in
the study by Freifrau., et al. [40] the use of another ceramic material
for the abutment is reported, such as lithium disilicate cemented to
titanium bases; they made a comparison of bond strength between
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
55
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
these two ceramic materials using different resin cement, Multil-
ink Hybrid Abutment- Monobond Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent), Panavia
 
Relyx Ceramic Primer (3M ESPE); reporting greater bond strength
for the Multilink Hybrid Abutment- Monobond Plus for two ceram-
ic materials. In addition, to these studies, the one by Güngör., et al.
[41], where they study a different bonding agent such as Zirconite
(DJM), which is a dual-polymer self-adhesive universal resin ce-
ment specially designed for zirconia cementing, being compared
to Multilink Hybrid Abutment (Ivoclar Vivadent) Panavia F2.0
-
tioning agent, Zirconite presented the highest values of adhesion
followed by Multilink Hybrid Abutment.
When evaluating the success of restorations, it will not only be
affected by the bond strength but also, aesthetic factors such as the
maintenance of the restoration’s color will be taken into account,

cement but also for the choice of its color. In the study by Liu., et
al. [42], which evaluated the color stability of the restorations
with different cement: Variolink Esthetic, Translucent glue, Zinc
oxide temporary cement, Multilink Hybrid Abutment HO 0, Relyx
Unicem A2, Panavia V5 clear, Panavia V5 A2, Panavia V5 White,
Panavia V5 opaque; these cement were used in unsanblasted ti-
tanium bases; Multilink Hybrid Abutment HO 0, Relyx A2, Unicem
A2, Panavia V5 clear, Panavia V5 A2, Panavia V5 White, Panavia V5
opaque, they were used in sandblasted titanium bases, represent-
ing a clinical situation of a left upper lateral incisor, the evaluation
was performed using the spectrophotometer. The effect of sand-
blasting on the color result depended on the type of cement used;
for unsandblasted titanium abutments, the results were favorable
for Multilink Hybrid Abutment HO 0 cement (Ivoclar Vivadent),
followed by Panavia V5 A2 (Kuraray) and Panavia V5 Opaque (Ku-
raray). When the titanium abutments were sandblasted, the resin
cement Multilink Hybrid Abutment HO 0 (Ivoclar Vivadent), was
the only cement that presented a value below the detection of the
human eye.
Ceramic resistance fracture
To provide restorations compatible with titanium bases, the
abutment material, that abutment design and the crown mate-
rial were evaluated, thus generating aesthetic and reliable com-
ponents, in the study carried out by Bankoglu., et al. [43], evalu-
ated 5 abutment/crown systems on titanium bases, among their
research groups are: monolithic lithium disilicate crown cemented
to the titanium base, monolithic lithium disilicate crown cemented
to a lithium disilicate abutment and it is cemented in the titanium
base, monolithic lithium disilicate crown cemented to a zirconia
abutment and this is cemented in the titanium base; crown with
zirconia cap and feldspar coating cemented in the titanium base
and monolithic disilicate crown of lithium cemented on a prefab-
ricated zirconia abutment, half of the groups were thermocycled
then brought to failure by means of the universal instron machine
and the other half was only brought to failure, among their results
are that the group monolithic lithium disilicate crown cemented to
a zirconia abutment and this cemented on the titanium base pre-
sented the highest values of resistance to the fracture in both the
groups with and without thermocycling, while the group of lithium
disilicate monolithic crown cemented to a lithium disilicate abut-
ment and this one cemented to titanium base presented the low-
est values reported in the study. In the study by Nouh., et al. [44]
evaluated the fracture resistance and failure mode of monolithic
zirconia crowns cemented on titanium bases, zirconia crowns ce-
mented on zirconia abutments and these on titanium bases and
monolithic lithium disilicate crown cemented on titanium bases,
and lithium disilicate crowns cemented on lithium disilicate abut-
ments and these on titanium bases; all groups were subjected to
thermocycling; where the fracture resistance was higher in zirco-
nia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments, and these cemented
on titanium bases. In another study seeking to evaluate equally
different ceramic systems both in the abutment and in the resto-
 et al. [45] evaluated the stress
distribution of different groups that were distributed according to
the material of the crown and the abutment. The same crown ma-

strength of the restoration compared to a lithium disilicate hybrid
abutment, demonstrating that the stress generated on these abut-
-
rial is placed underneath.
Kyaw., et al
load on the transformation of the phase of the zirconia abutments,
       -
tion of the monoclinic phase obtained from the aging techniques.
To determine the bending moments and failure modes of zirconia
abutments bonded to titanium bases Pitta., et al. [47], conducted
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
56
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
a study with fully ceramic monolithic crowns after aging; among
their ceramic materials they evaluated lithium disilicate monolith-
ic crowns, hybrid ceramic monolithic crowns, zirconia monolithic
crowns and lithium disilicate monolithic crowns on a titanium
abutment, this being the control group. They found that the group
of monolithic crowns of zirconia cemented on a titanium base pre-
  -

by Gierthmuehlen., et al. [48], where they evaluated the clinical
behavior of 28 patients restored with lithium disilicate monolithic
crowns cemented on titanium bases; they evaluated marginal ad-
aptation, surface roughness, color stability and anatomical shape.
At the end of one year, the occlusal surface was rough, which was
limited to the contact points or functional areas and was mainly
related to the wear of the material and, as regards the other param-
eters evaluated, they remained stable during the follow-up time.
Margin design
The interface between the titanium base and the zirconia abut-
ment has become a concern because the edge margin of the zirconia
abutment is in the subgingival portion of the implant, the adhesion
between the abutment and the titanium base component is very
important since if a separation is made in this area, it can generate
peri-implant diseases; Mieda., et al. [49], conducted a study using a
chewing simulator to compare three types of zirconia margins on a
titanium base: posterior taper, shoulder, and chamfer to determine
the best margin shape for safe clinical application. Among their re-
sults they found that the zirconia margin with a posterior conical
shape transferred the tension to the interior of the implant, on the
contrary, the chamfer margin releases stress outside the implant;
the shoulder and posterior conical groups did not present frac-
tures in the margin of the zirconia coping. Only the chamfer groups
      
shoulder margin group had marked separation on both sides. Ac-
cordingly, the authors reported that the posterior taper margin
prevents deformation and damage, generating greater long-term
stability with high longevity for adhesive performance between
the zirconia coping and the titanium bases.
The behavior of sterilization in titanium bases
The sterilization process of the titanium bases provides a bac-
teria-free surface generating greater epithelial adhesion, reducing
the chances of the presence of any peri-implant disease. However,
the effect of sterilization at the abutment/implant interface is un-
known when using chemical or dual-cure cement, therefore the
studies by Pils., et al. [50] and Fadanelli., et al. [51], evaluated the
possible effects of an autoclave sterilization process on the tensile
strength of zirconia abutments cemented on titanium bases com-
pared when this process was not performed, there was no statisti-
   
were subjected to sterilization presented higher retention values.
Conclusion
This review mainly focused on the general information about
the use of titanium bases in prosthetic implant dentistry to give
dentists a basic knowledge about their possible applications in
implant-supported restorations. Currently, their application is in-
creasing in recent years in prosthodontics because of their ben-
      
peri-implant diseases and improve the esthetics. As a conclusion
titanium bases are a predictable alternative in screw-retained or
-
thetics in the anterior region could be high.
C

Bibliography
1. Buser D, Janner SFM, Wittneben JG, Brägger U, Ramseier CA,
Salvi GE. 10-Year survival and success rates of 511 Titanium
Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Ret-
rospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin Im-
plant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:839-851.
2. Chappuis V, Buser R, Brägger U, Bornstein MM, Salvi GE, Buser
D. Long-term outcomes of dental implants with a titanium
plasma-sprayed surface: A 20-year prospective case series
study in partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat
Res. 2013;15:780-790.
3. Molina A, Sanz-Sánchez I, Martín C, Blanco J, Sanz M. The effect
of one-time abutment placement on interproximal bone levels
and peri-implant soft tissues: a prospective randomized clini-
cal trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:443-452.
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
57
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
4. -
ence of abutment material on peri-implant soft tissues in an-
terior areas with thin gingival biotype: a multicentric prospec-
tive study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1263-1268.
5. Rosentritt M, Hagemann A, Hahnel S, Behr M, Preis V. In vitro
performance of zirconia and titanium implant/abutment sys-
tems for anterior application. J Dent. 2014;42:1019-10126.
6. Linkevicius T, Vaitelis J. The effect of zirconia or titanium
as abutment material on soft peri-implant tissues: A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res.
2015;26:139-147.
7. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain M V. Strength, frac-
ture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceram-
ic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Ma-
ter. 2004;20:449-456.
8. Kim JW, Covel NS, Guess PC, Rekow ED, Zhang Y. Concerns of
hydrothermal degradation in CAD/CAM Zirconia. J Dent Res.
2010;89:91-95.
9. Rosentritt M, Rembs A, Behr M, Hahnel S, Preis V. In vitro per-
formance of implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns:
     
titanium adhesive bases. J Dent. 2015;43:839-845.
10. Worni A, Kolgeci L, Rentsch-Kollar A, Katsoulis J, Mericske-
Stern R. Zirconia-Based Screw-Retained prostheses supported
by implants: A retrospective study on technical complications
and failures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:1073-1081.
11. Elsayed A, Wille S, Al-Akhali M, Kern M. Comparison of frac-
ture strength and failure mode of different ceramic implant
abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:499-506.
12. Sailer I, Sailer T, Stawarczyk B, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF. In
vitro       
fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external
implant-abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2009;24:850-858.
13. Arce C, Lawson N, Liu P-R, Lin C, Givan D. Retentive force of
zirconia implant crowns on titanium bases following dif-
ferent surface treatments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2018;33:530-535.
14. Von Maltzahn NF, Holstermann J, Kohorst P. Retention forces
between titanium and zirconia components of two-part Im-
   -
cation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:735-744.
15. Blasi A, Clavijo V. Decision-making process for restoring single
implants. Qdt Quintessence Dent Technol. 2017;40:66-89.
16. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess
cement and the risk of peri-implant disease - A systematic re-
view. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1278-1290.
17. Lopes AC de O, Machado CM, Bonjardim LR, Bergamo ETP, Ra-
malho IS, Witek L, et al. The effect of CAD/CAM crown material
and cement type on retention to implant abutments. J Prostho-
dont. 2019;28:552-556.
18. Coldea A, Swain M V., Thiel N. Mechanical properties of
   
2013;29:419-426.
19. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and
systems with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J
Prosthet Dent. 2007;98:389-404.
20. Denry I, Kelly JR. Emerging ceramic-based materials for den-
tistry. J Dent Res. 2014;93:1235-1242.
21. Tribst JP, Dal Piva AM, Borges AL, Anami LC, Kleverlaan CJ, Bot-
tino MA. Survival probability, weibull characteristics, stress

ceramic network restorations cemented on a chairside tita-
nium base: An in vitro and in silico Study. Materials (Basel).
2020;13:1879.
22.          -
sistance and survival of implant-supported, zirconia-based
-
ture. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018;9:12355.
23. McGlumphy EA, Papazoglou E, Riley RL. The combination im-
plant crown: a cement- and screw-retained restoration. Com-
pendium. 1992;13:34-38.
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
58
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
24. Heller H, Arieli A, Beitlitum I, Pilo R, Levartovsky S. Load-bear-
ing capacity of zirconia crowns screwed to multi-unit abut-
ments with and without a titanium base: An In vitro pilot study.
Materials (Basel). 2019;12:3056.
25.         
   -
tion of zirconia restorations cemented or notched to titanium
bases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;5:357-365.
26. Zenthöfer A, Rues S, Krisam J, Rustemeyer R, Rammelsberg P,
Schmitter M. Debonding forces for two-piece zirconia abut-
ments with implant platforms of different diameter and use
of different luting strategies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2018;33:1041-1046.
27. Kolbeck C, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G. Fracture force of
    
partial dentures using titanium vs. customised zirconia im-
plant abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:1049-1053.
28. Eckert S. Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cement-
ed metal-ceramic crowns on implant abutments. J Prosthet
Dent. 1999;82:369-378.
29. Korsch M, Marten SM, Walther W, Vital M, Pieper DH, Dötsch A.

comparison of two different cements in an In vivo observation-
al study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:806-813.
30. Pamato S, Honório HM, da Costa JA, Traebert JL, Bonfante EA,
 
      
bone loss: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat
Res. 2020;1-7.
31. Asgeirsson AG, Sailer I, Gamper F, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF,
Thoma DS. Veneered zirconia abutments cemented on non-
original titanium bases: 1-year results of a prospective case
series. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:735-744.
32. Linkevicius T, Linkevicius R, Alkimavicius J, Linkeviciene L,
        
disilicate restoration and vertical soft tissue thickness on bone
stability around triangular-shaped implants: A prospective
clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:716-724.
33. Erhan Çömlekoğlu M, Nizam N, Çömlekoğlu MD. Immediate de-
     
loss: a randomized controlled split-mouth study on 16 pa-
tients. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:475-486.
34. Vagkopoulou T, Koutayas SO, Koidis P, Strub JR. Zirconia in
dentistry: Part 1. Discovering the nature of an upcoming bioc-
eramic. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009;4:130-151.
35. Elsaka SE, Elnaghy M. Effect of surface treatment and aging on
bond strength of composite cement to novel CAD / CAM nano-
hybrid composite. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22:195-204.
36. Kemarly K, Arnason S, Parke A, Lien W, Vandewalle K. Effect of
various surface treatments on ti-base coping retention. Oper
Dent. 2020.
37. Linkevicius T, Caplikas A, Dumbryte I, Linkeviciene L, Svediene
O. Retention of zirconia copings over smooth and airborne-
particle-abraded titanium bases with different resin cements.
J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:949-954.
38. Wiedenmann F, Liebermann A, Spintzyk S, Eichberger M, Sta-
 -
sile bond strength between zirconia abutment and titanium
base. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:1318-1327.
39. Gehrke P, Alius J, Fischer C, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F. Retentive
strength of two-piece CAD/CAM zirconia implant abutments.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16:920-925.
40. Freifrau von Maltzahn N, Bernard S, Kohorst P. Two-part im-
plant abutments with titanium and ceramic components: Sur-
     In-vitro study.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:903-909.
41. Güngör M, Nemli S. The effect of resin cement type and ther-
momechanical aging on the retentive strength of custom zirco-
nia abutments bonded to titanium inserts. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants. 2017;33:523-529.
42. -
ence of different cements on the color outcomes of titanium-
based lithium disilicate all-ceramic crowns and peri-implant
soft tissue. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33:63-73.
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
59
Dental Home - An Imperative Practice Elapsed
Volume 3 Issue 9 September 2020
© All rights are reserved by Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al.
43.          
Fracture resistance of different implant supported ceramic
abutment/crown systems. Eur Oral Res. 2019;53:80-87.
44. Nouh I, Kern M, Sabet AE, Aboelfadl AK, Hamdy AM, Chaar MS.
Mechanical behavior of posterior all-ceramic hybrid-abut-
ment-crowns versus hybrid-abutments with separate crowns-
A laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:90-98.
45. Tribs J, Oliveira A, Özcan     
ceramic materials on biomechanical behavior of implant sup-
-
dont Restor Dent. 2019;27:1-7.
46. Kyaw PP, Pongprueksa P, Anuchitolarn W, Sirinukunwatta K,
Suputtamongkol K. Ageing assessment of zirconia implant
prostheses by three different quantitative assessment tech-
niques. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11:253-261.
47. Pitta J, Hicklin S, Fehmer V, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen P, Sailer I.
Mechanical stability of zirconia meso-abutments bonded to
titanium bases restored with different monolithic all-ceramic
crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:1091-1097.
48. Gierthmuehlen P, Berger L, Spitznagel F. Monolithic screw-re-
tained lithium disilicate implant crowns: preliminary data of a
prospective cohort study. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33:272-276.
49. Mieda M, Atsuta I, Matsushita Y, Morita T, Ayukawa Y, Tsuki-
yama Y, et al. The effective design of zirconia coping on tita-
nium base in dental implant superstructure. Dent Mater J.
2018;37:237-243.
50. Pils D, Baeppler RJ, Junker R, Kielbassa AM, Nothdurft FP. Ap-
plication of a standard autoclaving protocol does not harm
structural integrity of two-piece zirconia abutments under
detachment force testing. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:3133-
3137.
51. Fadanelli MA, Do Amaral FLB, Basting RT, Turssi CP, Sotto-
Maior BS, França FMG. Effect of steam autoclaving on the ten-
sile strength of resin cements used for bonding two-piece zir-
conia abutments. J Oral Implantol. 2017;43:87-93.
Citation: Luis Gabriel Ladino., et al. “Titanium Bases in Implant Dentistry: A Comprehensive Narrative Review". 3.9
(2020): 51-59.
... The Ti-base could provide high esthetic implant restoration in the anterior and posterior region with an uncomplicated procedure. 5,6,15,45 Correspondingly, it had been reported that the abutment with Ti-base revealed higher performance than the abutment without Ti-base in many aspects. 45 The combination of hybrid-abutment-crown in Ti-Hybrid generated the worse stress distribution of screw than Ti. ...
... 5,6,15,45 Correspondingly, it had been reported that the abutment with Ti-base revealed higher performance than the abutment without Ti-base in many aspects. 45 The combination of hybrid-abutment-crown in Ti-Hybrid generated the worse stress distribution of screw than Ti. The combination of abutment and crown in Ti-Hybrid seemed to have a higher risk of screw complication and should be used cautiously. ...
Article
Article shared link (read only) : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/89Y5XJDDBHR7TAWQMNPS?target=10.1111/jopr.13530 Purpose: The purpose was to investigate stress distribution among 4 different customized abutment types: titanium abutment (Ti), titanium hybrid-abutment-crown (Ti-Hybrid), zirconia abutment with titanium base (Zir-TiBase), and zirconia hybrid-abutment-crown with titanium base (Zir-Hybrid-TiBase). Materials and methods: To achieve this purpose, 4 types of abutment configurations were simulated. A static load of 200 N (vertical) and 100 N (oblique) were applied to the models. The volume average, maximum, and stress distribution of von Mises stress, including percentage difference, were analyzed with three-dimensional finite element analysis. Results: According to the volume average von Mises stress, the Ti and Zir-TiBase comparison group showed that the Zir-TiBase group dominantly generated the higher value at Ti-base (22.57 MPa) and screw (17.68 MPa). To evaluate the effect of the hybrid-abutment-crown on volume average von Mises stress by comparing the Ti-Hybrid and Zir-Hybrid-TiBase groups, it was revealed that the combination of abutment and crown in the Ti-Hybrid group generated the worst stress concentration at the screw (12.42 MPa), while in the Zir-Hybrid-TiBase group presented stress concentration at the implant (8.90 MPa). Conclusions: A titanium base improved stress distribution at implant in zirconia abutment with titanium base by absorbing stress itself. Customized titanium hybrid-abutment-crown and zirconia hybrid-abutment-crown with titanium base created concentrated stress at screw and implant; respectively. Both abutment types should be cautiously used and maintenanced regularly. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Full-text (read only) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/QDM2ZPXIM2WDTNI7UMVZ?target=10.1111/jopr.13530
... Dental implants are now a commonly favored solution to replace missing teeth in human oral cavity [1]. Owing to the superior physical properties, chemical stability, and biocompatibility, the titanium-based alloys have become the most extensively used materials for fabricating dental implants and obtained long-term success rate [2][3][4]. ...
... Titanium bases are versatile prosthetic components for implants. 14 From one perspective, different material (zirconia, lithium disilicate, porcelain fused to metal) single-or multi-unit restorations can be cemented with bases. Conversely, a reliable connection with implants can be achieved. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: This study evaluated screw loosening and 3D crown displacement after cyclic loading of implant-supported incisor crowns cemented with original titanium bases or with three compatible, nonoriginal components. Materials and methods: A total of 32 dental implants were divided into four groups (n = 8 each): Group 1 used original titanium bases, while Groups 2-4 used compatible components. The reverse torque value (RTV) was evaluated prior to and after cyclic loading (1,200,000 cycles). Samples (prior to and after cyclic loading) were scanned with a microcomputed tomography (micro-CT). Preload and postload files were superimposed by 3D inspection software, and 3D crown displacement analysis was performed using root-mean-square (RMS) values. All datasets were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc analysis. Results: Significant variations were observed in the postload RTV, depending on the titanium base brand (P < .001). The mean postload RTVs were significantly higher in Groups 1 and 2 than in the other study groups. While evaluating 3D crown displacement, the lowest mean RMS value was shown in the original Group 1, with the highest RMS value occurring in Group 4. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study and under the implemented conditions, it was concluded that the manufacturer brand of the titanium base significantly influenced screw loosening following the fatigue test and influenced 3D crown displacement after cyclic loading.
Article
Full-text available
BACKGROUND: This trial aims to study the difference between prostheses screwmented on full-arch implants using the intraoral luting cement technique on titanium bases versus transmucosal abutments in terms of prosthetic complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were recruited in this trial, there were mainly two groups. A screw-retained full-arch implant-supported prosthesis was constructed over four dental implants on upper or lower jaws. For the control group, multiunit abutments were used to construct a screw-retained prosthesis. As for the experimental group, Ti-base abutments were used over the dental implants to construct a screw-retained prosthesis. In both groups, the prosthetic framework was made using polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material and luted intraorally over the titanium sleeve using resin cement. A binary outcome of prosthetic complication was taken in 6 and 12 months. Abutment screw loosening, prosthetic screw loosening, prosthetic screw fracture, abutment screw fracture, veneer fracture, framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and overall prosthetic loosening were the prosthetic complications included in the trial. RESULTS: At the end of the study, a total of 19 patients adhered to the trial. Throughout the exposure process of implants, two implants failed in one patient from the Ti-base group. This patient was excluded from the study on his request. There was no statistically significant difference present between Ti-base and multiunit abutment groups in terms of abutment and prosthetic screw loosening, abutment and prosthetic screw fracture, veneer and framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and overall prosthesis loosening for 6 and 12 months. Data were explored for normality using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, data showed non-parametric (not-normal) distribution. Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare the qualitative outcomes in this study. CONCLUSION: Both multiunit and Ti-base are considered a viable line of treatment to construct a screw-retained full arch implant-supported prosthesis.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The present study aims to describe through a literature review, the characteristics and properties of hybrid abutments, as well as their proper use as a new rehabilitation strategy. Methods: A bibliographic search was conducted in the main health databases Pubmed (www.pubmed.gov) and Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com.br), in which studies published from 2001 to 2020 were collected. Laboratory studies, case reports, systematic and literature reviews were included. Therefore, articles that do not adress the characteristics and properties of hybrid abutments were excluded. In addition, studies that did not report the use of hybrid abutments as a new rehabilitation strategy. Results: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 80 research articles were selected and 20 were excluded, while 25 in vitro, 17 in vivo and 9 in silico studies were reviewed. Conclusions: The literature demonstrates that hybrid abutments are an excellent alternative in cases of implant-supported rehabilitation, presenting high esthetic results, associated with good soft tissue response, periimplant marginal bone stability and adequate stress distribution during the masticatory loads dissipation.
Article
Full-text available
Different techniques are available to manufacture polymer-infiltrated ceramic restorations cemented on a chairside titanium base. To compare the influence of these techniques in the mechanical response, 75 implant-supported crowns were divided in three groups: CME (crown cemented on a mesostructure), a two-piece prosthetic solution consisting of a crown and hybrid abutment; MC (monolithic crown), a one-piece prosthetic solution consisting of a crown; and MP (monolithic crown with perforation), a one-piece prosthetic solution consisting of a crown with a screw access hole. All specimens were stepwise fatigued (50 N in each 20,000 cycles until 1200 N and 350,000 cycles). The failed crowns were inspected under scanning electron microscopy. The finite element method was applied to analyze mechanical behavior under 300 N axial load. Log-Rank (p = 0.17) and Wilcoxon (p = 0.11) tests revealed similar survival probability at 300 and 900 N. Higher stress concentration was observed in the crowns’ emergence profiles. The MP and CME techniques showed similar survival and can be applied to manufacture an implant-supported crown. In all groups, the stress concentration associated with fractographic analysis suggests that the region of the emergence profile should always be evaluated due to the high prevalence of failures in this area.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of cyclic loading on phase transformation of zirconia abutments and to compare the effectiveness of three different quantitative ageing assessment techniques. Materials and methods: Thirty two Y-TZP prostheses fabricated from two brands, InCoris ZI and Ceramill ZI, were cemented to titanium bases and equally divided into two subgroups (n=8): control group without any treatment and aged group with cyclic loading between 20 N and 98 N for 100,000 cycles at 4 Hz in distilled water at 37℃. The tetragonal-to-monoclinic phase transformation was assessed by (i) conventional x-ray diffraction (XRD), (ii) micro x-ray diffraction (µXRD), and (iii) micro-Raman spectroscopy. The monoclinic-phase fractions (M%) were compared by two-way ANOVA. Results: InCoris Zi presented significantly higher M% than Ceramill Zi in both control and aged groups (P<.001). Both materials exhibited significant phase transformation with monoclinicphase of 1 to 3% more in aged groups than controls for all thre e assessment techniques. The comparable M% was quantified by both µXRD and XRD. The highest M% was assessed with micro-Raman. Conclusion: Cyclic loading produced significant phase transformation in tested Y-TZP prostheses. The micro-Raman spectroscopy could be used as an alternative to XRD and µXRD.
Article
Full-text available
The static and dynamic load-bearing capacities and failure modes of zirconia crowns screwed to multi-unit abutments (MUAs) with and without a titanium base (T-base) were determined. Thirty-six monolithic zirconia crowns screwed to straight MUAs torqued to laboratory analogs (30 Ncm) were assigned to two groups (n = 18). In group A, the zirconia crowns were screwed directly to the MUAs; in group B, the zirconia crowns were cemented to the T-base and screwed to the MUAs. All specimens were aged in 100% humidity (37 °C) for one month and subjected to thermocycling (20,000 cycles). Afterwards, the specimens underwent static and dynamic loading tests following ISO 14801. The failure modes were evaluated by stereomicroscopy (20×). There was an unequivocally similar trend in the S-N plots of both specimen groups. The load at which the specimens survived 5,000,000 cycles was 250 N for both groups. Group A failed mainly within the metal, and zirconia failure occurred only at a high loading force. Group B exhibited failure within the metal mostly in conjunction with adhesive failure between the zirconia and T-base. Zirconia restoration screwed directly to an MUA is a viable option, but further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.
Article
Purpose: To analyze the clinical behavior of screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate (LDS) implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) over a 1-year follow-up. Materials and methods: A total of 28 patients were restored with 45 screw-retained monolithic LDS (press-fabricated) ISSCs bonded to titanium bases in posterior sites. Modified United States Public Health Service criteria and Kaplan-Meier survival and success rates were evaluated. Results: A total of 27 patients with 44 ISSCs were evaluated 12 months (mean ± standard deviation: 13.02 ± 2.28) after prosthesis delivery. No implant or crown failures occurred. The Kaplan-Meier survival and success rates were each 100% after 1 year. Minorly increased surface roughness was noted in the occlusal contact point areas of 9 ISSCs (20.5% Bravo rating). Marginal adaptation, color match, and anatomical form stayed favorable over time. Conclusion: Press-fabricated LDS monolithic screw-retained implant crowns appear to be a promising treatment option for posterior implants under short-term observation.
Article
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface treatments and aging on the bond strength of composite cement to a novel CAD/CAM nanohybrid composite. Materials and methods: Microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of a dual-curing composite cement (Bifix QM; BQ) to three CAD/CAM restorative materials (Grandio [GR], Vita Enamic [VE], and Lava Ultimate [LU]) was evaluated after different surface treatments. The surfaces of specimens received the following treatments: control (no treatment), sandblasting (SB), SB + silane (Ceramic Bond; CB), hydrofluoric acid (HF), HF + CB, TiF4 2 wt/v%, TiF4 2 wt/v% + CB, TiF4 4 wt/v%, and TiF4 4 wt/v% + CB. Half of the specimens in each group were aged. Surface topography and surface roughness were evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA and Tukey's test. The Weibull analysis was conducted on µTBS data of aged groups. Results: The µTBS was significantly affected by the type of CAD/CAM material, type of treatment, and aging (p < 0.001). Silane application significantly improved the µTBS (p < 0.05). The µTBS decreased significantly with aging (5000 thermocycles) (p < 0.05). BQ cement resulted in the highest μTBS to GR treated with TiF4 2% wt/v + CB compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Aged GR/BQ treated with TiF4 2% wt/v + CB had the highest predicted µTBS (19 MPa). Conclusion: TiF4 2% wt/v followed by silane application enhanced the adhesion of GR/BQ and LU/BQ systems. On the other hand, HF surface treatment followed by silane application improved the adhesion of the VE/BQ system.
Article
Purpose: Different titanium bases for implant-supported prostheses can present different mechanical behavior. The goal of this study was to evaluate the torque before and after fatigue, the load to failure, and stress concentration of zirconia restorations cemented or notched to a titanium base. Materials and methods: Forty implants were included in polyurethane cylinders and divided into two groups: zirconia restoration cemented on a titanium base and zirconia restoration notched on a titanium base. The specimens had their torque loosening and vertical misfit evaluated before and after cyclic fatigue (200 N/2 Hz/2000000 cycles/37°C). Load to failure was evaluated in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min, 1,000 kgf). Failures were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. Three-dimensional models were created, and the stress concentration was calculated using the finite element method. Data from the in vitro tests were submitted to two-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (α = .5). Results: The cemented restorations presented less torque loosening (19.79 to 15.95 Ncm), lower vertical misfit (3.7 to 10.5 μm), lower stress concentration in the restoration (88.2 to 99.8 MPa), and higher fracture load (451.3 to 390.8 N) than notched restorations. Conclusion: The presence of a cement layer between the restoration and titanium base reduced the susceptibility to abutment screw loosening, improved the resistance to compressive load, and reduced the stress concentration in the restoration.
Article
Objective The titanium-cement interface of a Ti-Base implant crown must be able to resist intraoral pull-off forces. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical and chemical surface treatments of a titanium-abutment base (Ti-Base, Dentsply/Sirona) on the pull-off bond strength of a lithium disilicate abutment coping. Methods and Materials Ti-Bases were divided into nine groups of 10 copings each that varied in both mechanical surface treatment (none; Al 2 O 3 air abrasion; CoJet silicoating, 3M ESPE) and chemical treatments (none; Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent; Alloy Primer, Kuraray). Lithium disilicate abutment copings (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were designed and milled. After crystallization, the copings were cemented onto the Ti-Bases with a resin cement (MultiLink Hybrid-Abutment Cement, Ivoclar Vivadent) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The copings were torqued to a mounted implant, and the access channel was sealed with composite. After 24-hour storage and 2000 thermal-cycles in distilled water, the copings were subjected to a removal force parallel to the long axis of the interface until fracture. Data were analyzed with multiple one-way analyses of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05). Results Significant differences were found between groups based on type of surface treatment ( p<0.05). Conclusions Chemical surface treatment with Monobond Plus and mechanical surface treatment with CoJet silicoating or Al 2 O 3 air abrasion resulted in the greatest pull-off bond strength. Alloy Primer did not provide a statistically significant increased pull-off bond strength when the surfaces were mechanically treated with Al 2 O 3 air abrasion or CoJet silicoating. The lack of any mechanical surface treatment resulted in the lowest pull-off bond strength regardless of the type of chemical surface treatment.
Article
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of different cements on the color outcomes of CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate implant crowns cemented to titanium-base abutments utilizing spectrophotometric analysis. Materials and methods: A clinical situation with a missing lateral incisor was mimicked using a maxillary plastic model. Titanium-base-supported monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with identical designs were fabricated using a laboratory CAD/CAM system. The crowns were cemented with three provisional cements and with six definitive cements on both nonsandblasted and sandblasted titanium-base abutments for a total of 15 test groups. As a control group, identical crowns were attached with try-in paste on composite die abutments that duplicated the shape of the titanium-base abutments. The colors of the labial surfaces of the crowns and the peri-implant artificial soft tissue were measured with a spectrophotometer and recorded in CIE L*a*b* parameters. Color differences between the test and control groups were calculated as: ΔE = ([ΔL*]2 + [Δa*]2 + [Δb*]2)1/2. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare ΔE values across different groups. Results: The median ΔE values reported for crowns cemented with different definitive cements on titanium-base abutments ranged from 1.4 to 2.9 for the crown surface and from 1.7 to 1.9 on the peri-implant artificial soft tissue; when the titanium-base abutments were sandblasted, the respective median ΔE values ranged from 0.8 to 4.0 and from 1.4 to 2.2. Ceramic crowns cemented with Multilink HO 0 cement presented significantly (P < .01) lower ΔE values than the other cement types for the crown surface independent of sandblasting and for the artificial soft tissue surface when the titanium abutments were sandblasted (P = .011). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, Multilink HO 0 (Ivoclar Vivadent) cement showed the most favorable masking ability and the most favorable color outcome among the evaluated definitive cements. Cements of more opaque shades appeared in general to be more favorable in terms of masking the gray color of the titanium-base abutments.
Article
Purpose: To investigate the tensile bond strength between zirconia abutments and titanium bases, luted with two different resin composite cements, after different cleaning procedures. Materials and methods: Zirconia abutments and titanium bases were luted with either a DMA/HEMA-based cement (n = 80; Multilink Hybrid Abutment, Ivoclar Vivadent) or a Bis-GMA/TEGDMA-based cement (n = 80; Panavia V5, Kuraray Noritake). The adhesive gap of half of the specimens was polished (n = 40 per resin composite cement). Four separate specimens underwent roughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. The specimens were divided into four groups (n = 10 per subgroup): (1) not cleaned, (2) cleaning in an ultrasonic bath, (3) cleaning in an autoclave, and (4) treatment with low-pressure plasma. The specimens were thermocycled (20,000×, 5°C/55°C), tensile bond strength was tested, and fracture types were analyzed. Data were examined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, univariate ANOVA with additional partial eta-squared (ηp2), and the Mann-Whitney U test. The defined level of significance was adjusted by Bonferroni correction (P < .003). Results: The tensile bond strength of specimens luted with the DMA/HEMA-based cement was higher than that of specimens luted with the Bis-GMA/TEGDMA-based cement. The polishing step and the cleaning procedures showed no impact on tensile bond strength results. Specimens luted with the DMA/HEMA-based cement presented more cohesive fractures, whereas specimens luted with the Bis-GMA/TEGDMA-based cement presented themselves with more fractures of the interface between the resin composite cement and zirconia abutment. Ra values showed a decline in roughness after polishing for both resin composite cements. Conclusion: As the DMA/HEMA-based cement showed higher tensile bond strength values, the usage of this resin composite cement for luting implant abutments to titanium bases can be recommended. Neither polishing nor the use of different cleaning procedures had an impact on tensile bond strength.