Int J Stomatol

Int J Stomatol ›› 2025, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (5): 621-626.doi: 10.7518/gjkq.2025082

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effect of implant abutment geometry on the axial retaining force of zirconia crown

Hong Zhang(),Qing Yu()   

  1. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Institute of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China
  • Received:2024-11-01 Revised:2025-06-18 Online:2025-09-01 Published:2025-08-27
  • Contact: Qing Yu E-mail:15755264551@163.com;kqmike@163.com
  • Supported by:
    Nanjing Science and Technology Program(202205051)

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

17

Abstract:

Objective This study investigated the effects of occlusal gingival height, convergence angle, and abutment diameter on the axial tensile force of zirconia crowns and explores the interactions among these three factors. Methods Using Solidworks software, twelve types of abutments with varying convergence angles (12° and 6°), occlusal gingival heights (3 and 5 mm), and diameters (3.5, 5, and 6 mm) were designed, which resulted in a total of 72 samples (six of each type). These abutments were manufactured via selective laser melting (SLM) three-dimensional printing. Corresponding zirconia crowns (72 total) were produced via computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and bonded for 48 h. Axial tensile tests were then conducted using a universal testing machine, followed by statistical analysis. Results In axial tensile tests, the retention force increased with the abutment diameter in the order of 3.5<5<6 mm groups (P<0.05). In addition, retention force was higher in the 6° convergence angle group compared with the 12° group (P<0.05) and greater in the 5 mm occlusal gingival height group compared with the 3 mm group (P<0.05). No interaction was observed among the three factors. However, interactions were noted between occlusal gingival height and diameter and between convergence angle and diameter. Notably, when the occlusal gingival height was 3 mm, no significant difference was detected in the retention force between the 3.5 and 5 mm diameter groups (P>0.05). Similarly, at a 12° convergence angle, no significant difference was observed in the retention force between the 5 and 6 mm diameter groups (P>0.05). Conclusion The retention force of zirconia crowns increases with a large abutment diameter, small convergence angle, and great occlusal gingival height. Reducing the convergence angle is more critical than increasing the abutment diameter when the occlusal gingival height is low. In cases with minimal restorative space, the selection of a small diameter abutment while ensuring a small convergence angle can also achieve satisfactory retention.

Key words: implant abutment, height, convergence angle, diameter, crown, retaining force, retention strength

CLC Number: 

  • R783.4

TrendMD: 

Fig 1

Schematic of the experimental procedure"

Tab 1

Multi-factor ANOVA on the effects of abutment height, convergence angle, and diameter on zirconia crown retention"

测量项目Ⅲ类平方和自由度均方F值P值
高度1 282 774.83611 282 774.836139.7730.000
聚合度1 317 767.89411 317 767.894143.5860.000
直径1 114 262.0972557 131.04860.7060.000
高度×聚合度25 117.876125 117.8762.7370.103
高度×直径208 180.9352104 090.46811.3420.000
聚合度×直径128 026.217264 013.1086.9750.002
高度×聚合度×直径39 944.335219 972.1682.1760.122

Fig 2

Statistical analysis of retention force under different abutment heights, diameters, and convergence angles"

Fig 3

Failure modes"

[1] 林玲, 蔡娉娉, 卓盈颖, 等. 种植冠粘接固位修复用水门汀的研究进展[J]. 福建医科大学学报, 2023, 57(4): 235-241.
Lin L, Cai PP, Zhuo YY, et al. Research progress of cement selection for cement-retained implant restorations[J]. J Fujian Med Univ, 2023, 57(4): 235-241.
[2] Sailer I, Karasan D, Todorovic A, et al. Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2022, 88(1): 130-144.
[3] 康娟, 邬子璇, 翟远坤, 等. 减少种植修复体周围粘接剂残留方法的体外研究[J]. 中华老年口腔医学杂志, 2022, 20(6): 340-343.
Kang J, Wu ZX, Zhai YK, et al. Techniques to reduce excess cement around implant restorations: an in-vitro study[J]. Chin J Geriatr Dent, 2022, 20(6): 340-343.
[4] Tyor S, Al-Zordk W, Sakrana AA. Fracture resistance of monolithic translucent zirconia crown bon-ded with different self-adhesive resin cement: in-fluence of MDP-containing zirconia primer after a-ging[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 636.
[5] Alfadhli R, Alshammari Y, Baig MR, et al. Clinical outcomes of single crown and 3-unit bi-layered zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses: an upto 6- year retrospective clinical study: clinical outcomes of zirconia FDPs[J]. J Dent, 2022, 127: 104321.
[6] Pitta J, Hjerppe J, Burkhardt F, et al. Mechanical stability and technical outcomes of monolithic CAD/CAM fabricated abutment-crowns supported by titanium bases: an in vitro study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32(2): 222-232.
[7] Emerson JS, Johnson GH, Kronström MH. Compa-rison of retention of monolithic zirconia crowns with alumina airborne-particle abraded and nonabraded intaglio using three different cements: a clinical si-mulation[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2024, 131(1): 100.e1-100.e5.
[8] Ozyetim EB, Ozdemir Z, Basim GB, et al. Effect of different surface treatments on retention of cement-retained, implant-supported crowns[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2023, 36(1): 49-58.
[9] Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain HA, et al. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2000, 83(3): 344-348.
[10] Strazzi-Sahyon HB, Bergamo ETP, Gierthmuehlen PC, et al. In vitro assessment of the effect of luting agents, abutment height, and fatigue on the retention of zirconia crowns luted to titanium base implant abutments[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023, 130(5): 739.e1-739.e8.
[11] Mehl C, Harder S, Shahriari A, et al. Influence of abutment height and thermocycling on retrievability of cemented implant-supported crowns[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2012, 27(5): 1106-1115.
[12] Choi KH, Son K, Lee DH, et al. Influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrie-vability of cement-retained implant prostheses with a lingual slot[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2018, 10(5): 381-387.
[13] Nguyen O, Lee SJ, Lee JD. Influence of varying titanium base abutment heights on retention of zirconia restorations: an in vitro study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023, 130(4): 604.e1-604.e5.
[14] Ramos NC, Alves LMM, Ramos GF, et al. The importance of MDP priming, silica blasting or glazing on the retention force of Y-TZP copings to varying geometry tooth abutments[J]. Coatings, 2021, 11: 11030315.
[15] Kirman EA, Asar NV, Erdem B, et al. Effects of abutment length and platform size on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM crowns using six different cements[J]. J Dent Sci, 2022, 17(1): 601-603.
[16] Saleh Saber F, Abolfazli N, Nuroloyuni S, et al. Effect of abutment height on retention of single cement-retained, wide- and narrow-platform implant-supported restorations[J]. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 2012, 6(3): 98-102.
[17] Hyun K. Sample size determination and power ana-lysis using the G*Power software[J]. J Educ Eval Health Prof, 2021, 18: 17.
[18] Wang FF, Li SY, Li Q, et al. Evaluation of the marginal excess cement and retention force of implant-supported zirconia crowns with various vent designs under different cement application patterns[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2022, 34(3): 565-573.
[19] Rödiger M, Kloß J, Gersdorff N, et al. Removal forces of adhesively and self-adhesively luted implant-supported zirconia copings depend on abutment geometry[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2018, 87: 119-123.
[20] Burkhardt F, Sailer I, Fehmer V, et al. Retention and marginal integrity of CAD/CAM fabricated crowns adhesively cemented to titanium base abutments-influence of bonding system and restorative material[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2023, 36(5): 651.
[21] Medić V, Obradović-Djuricić K. Factors influencing bonding fixed restorations[J]. Srp Arh Celok Lek, 2008, 136(5/6): 232-240.
[1] Bo Huang,Jian Wang,Xin Zhang. Zirconia ceramics in dental restoration: evaluation and solutions for low-temperature degradation [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2025, 52(2): 169-175.
[2] Meng Lu,Wenchuan Chen,Yi Gao. Strategies for preventing periodontal diseases in the restoration of subgingival tooth defects [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2025, 52(2): 238-245.
[3] Youhui Cao,Xuemei Bao. Application progress on finite element analysis in endocrown restoration [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2024, 51(3): 337-343.
[4] Yuze Yang,Luying Ai,Ziliang Zhang,Kang Xiao,Yudian Mao,Yun Wu,Ling Chen. Application of fragment reattachment with digital veneers in complex crown fractures of the upper anterior teeth: a case report [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2024, 51(2): 172-175.
[5] Wu Li’an. Application of partial crown reattachment in complicated crown-root fractures of permanent anterior teeth in children [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2023, 50(6): 623-631.
[6] Wang Xiao-chen,Wang Jian.. Research progress on preparation forms for the margin of monolithic zirconia crowns in posterior teeth [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2023, 50(4): 485-490.
[7] Zeng Fang,Wang Jian. Influencing factors of aesthetic prosthesis performance of monolithic zirconia crowns [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2022, 49(2): 233-238.
[8] Cao Zhengguo. Periodontal considerations in prosthetic dentistry [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2022, 49(1): 1-11.
[9] Yang Guangmei,Wang Jian. Mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia crowns and its relationship with clinical application [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2022, 49(1): 79-84.
[10] Liao Wenxiao,Ma Xindi,Hong Zhiwei,Wu Xinyu,Xing Yundi,Liu Jingwei,Chen Lei. Clinical effect of surgical extrusion in the treatment of complicated crown-root fracture of anterior teeth [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2021, 48(5): 541-548.
[11] Li Mixuezi,Zhang Chen. Clinical consideration on the application of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing endocrown in molar restoration after root canal therapy [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2021, 48(3): 274-279.
[12] Ji Mengzhen,Qi Meiyao,Du Kexin,Quan Shuqi,Zhang Yuqiang,Zheng Qinghua. Three-dimensional finite element study on the effect of pulp opening cavity on the resistance of cracked teeth after full crown restoration [J]. Int J Stomatol, 2021, 48(1): 41-49.
[13] Jie Huang,Yunhong Lin. Effect of keratinized mucosa width on peri-implant bone loss [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2019, 46(2): 149-155.
[14] Wan Qianbing. Several problems on monolithic zirconia crowns [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2018, 45(1): 9-13.
[15] Zheng Wei, Li Yu. New development in the comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment of gummy smile [J]. Inter J Stomatol, 2017, 44(5): 509-513.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!