Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Evaluation of the wear and retention performance of a shape-memory alloy abutment system after 6 months of clinical use

Published:November 25, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.025

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      A nitinol sleeve that uses shape memory to rapidly unlock dental restorations from implant abutments has been developed to allow prosthesis removal for assessment and maintenance, and clinical treatment has been promising. However, objective studies that evaluate the wear and retention performance after short-term clinical use are lacking.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the wear and retention performance of a shape-memory abutment system after 6 months of clinical use.

      Material and methods

      Shape-memory alloy sleeves on posterior osseointegrated implants were retrieved after 6 months of clinical use. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to evaluate the surfaces of the retention sleeve’s arms for wear. Uniaxial tensile testing was performed to measure the change in retention force after clinical use. Average retention values of the shape-memory abutment system were compared with previously reported in vitro retention values for definitive and interim cements used in titanium abutment and coping assemblies by using the Welch t test.

      Results

      No evidence of wear, fracture, or chipping was observed during SEM analysis on the shape-memory alloy sleeves. Additionally, no statistically significant difference was found in the median retention force for new (484.5 N) and clinically retrieved (476 N) nitinol sleeve specimens. Compared with a commercially available resin cement, the mean retention force for the control sleeves (480 ±37 N) was higher than that for the freshly cemented specimens (336.3 ±188 N). After 5000 cycles of compressive loads, the mean retention force for cement specimens decreased (209.4 ±83 N), while the clinical sleeves (476 ±50 N) remained unchanged.

      Conclusions

      According to the results of this study, after 6 months of clinical use, the engaging surfaces of the shape-memory alloy sleeve did not show signs of wear, and the retention force was unchanged.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Edelhoff D.
        • Ozcan M.
        To what extent does the longevity of fixed dental prostheses depend on the function of the cement? Working Group 4 materials: cementation.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 193-204
        • Vigolo P.
        • Givani A.
        • Majzoub Z.
        • Cordioli G.
        Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 260-265
        • De Boever A.L.
        • Keersmaekers K.
        • Vanmaele G.
        • Kerschbaum T.
        • Theuniers G.
        • De Boever J.A.
        Prosthetic complications in fixed endosseous implant-borne reconstructions after an observations period of at least 40 months.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33: 833-839
        • Shadid R.
        • Sadaqa N.
        A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review.
        J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38: 298-307
        • Wittneben J.G.
        • Millen C.
        • Bragger U.
        Clinical performance of screw-versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions – a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 84-98
        • Wittneben J.G.
        • Joda T.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Bragger U.
        Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis.
        Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73: 141-151
        • Dumbrigue H.B.
        • Abanomi A.A.
        • Cheng L.L.
        Techniques to minimize excess luting agent in cement-retained implant restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 112-114
        • Pauletto N.
        • Lahiffe B.J.
        • Walton J.N.
        Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 865-868
        • Watanabe F.
        • Uno I.
        • Hata Y.
        • Neuendorff G.
        • Kirsh A.
        Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 209-218
        • Goodacre C.J.
        • Bernal G.
        • Rungcharassaeng K.
        • Kan J.Y.K.
        Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 121-132
        • Shah K.C.
        • Seo Y.R.
        • Wu B.M.
        Clinical application of a shape memory implant abutment system.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 8-12
        • Shah K.C.
        • Linsley C.S.
        • Wu B.M.
        Evaluation of a shape memory implant abutment system: an up to 6-month pilot clinical study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 257-263
        • Chao D.
        • Crockett R.
        • Wu B.M.
        • Shah K.C.
        Digital workflow for predictable immediate loading in the mandible by using a shape memory dental implant abutment system: a clinical report.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 1-5
        • Shah K.C.
        • Chao D.
        • Wu B.M.
        • Jensen O.T.
        Shape-memory retained complete arch guided implant treatment using nitinol (Smileloc) abutments.
        Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019; 31: 427-435
        • Jensen O.T.
        • Jansen C.E.
        • Seo Y.
        • Yellich G.
        Guided nitinol-retained (Smileloc) single-tooth dental restorations.
        Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019; 31: 437-446
        • Siu A.S.C.
        • Chow J.K.F.
        • Au Yeung B.H.C.
        • Linsley C.S.
        • Wu B.M.
        Treating an edentulous mandible with an implant-supported prosthesis with a shape-memory alloy abutment system.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 775-780
        • Richter E.J.
        In vivo horizontal bending moments on implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 232-244
        • Dudley J.E.
        • Richards L.C.
        • Abbott J.R.
        Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments.
        Aust Dent J. 2008; 53: 332-339
        • Dinneen L.C.
        • Blakesley B.C.
        Algorithm AS 62: a generator for the sampling distribution of the Mann-Whitney U statistic.
        J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 1973; 22: 269-273
        • Al Hamad K.Q.
        • Al Rashdan B.A.
        • Abu-Sitta E.H.
        The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cement-retained implant restorations.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 638-644
        • Carnaggio T.V.
        • Conrad R.
        • Engelmeier R.L.
        • Gerngross P.
        • Paravina R.
        • Perezous L.
        • et al.
        Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area.
        J Prosthodont. 2012; 21: 523-528
        • Alvarez-Arenal A.
        • Gonzalez-Gonzalez I.
        • deLlanos-Lanchares H.
        • Brizuela-Velasco A.
        • Ellacuria-Echebarria J.
        The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 144-149