SEM Analysis and Micro-CT Evaluation of Four Dental Implants after Three Different Mechanical Requests—In Vitro Study

Abstract

Statement of problem: Implant-supported rehabilitations are an increasingly frequent practice to replace lost teeth. Before clinical application, all implant components should demonstrate suitable durability in laboratory studies, through fatigue tests. Objective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the integrity and wear of implant components using SEM, and to assess the axial displacement of the implant–abutment assembly by Micro-CT, in different implant connections, after three distinct mechanical requests. Materials and methods: Four KLOCKNER implants (external connection SK2 and KL; and internal connection VEGA and ESSENTIAL) were submitted to three different mechanical requests: single tightening, multiple tightening, and multiple tightening and cyclic loading (500 N × 100 cycles). A total of 16 samples were evaluated by SEM, by the X-ray Bragg–Brentano method to obtain residual stresses, and scratch tests were realized for each surface and Micro-CT (4 control samples; 4 single tightening; 4 multiple tightening; 4 multiple tightening and cyclic loading). All dental implants were fabricated with commercially pure titanium (grade 3 titanium). Surface topography and axial displacement of abutment into the implant, from each group, were evaluated by SEM and Micro-CT. Results: In the manufacturing state, implants and abutments revealed minor structural changes and minimal damage from the machining process. The application of the tightening torque and loading was decisive in the appearance and increase in contact marks on the faces of the hexagon of the abutment and the implant. Vega has the maximum compressive residual stress and, as a consequence, higher scratch force. The abutment–implant distances in SK2 and KL samples did not show statistically significant differences, for any of the mechanical demands analyzed. In contrast, statistically significant differences were observed in abutment–implant distance in the internal connection implants Vega and Essential. Conclusions: The application of mechanical compression loads caused deformation and contact marks in all models tested. Only internal connection implants revealed an axial displacement of the abutment into the implant, but at a general level, a clear intrusion of the abutment into the implant could only be confirmed in the Essential model, which obtained its maximal axial displacement with cyclic loading.