Cascos, RocioCelemín Viñuela, María Del Pilar AliciaMory Rubiños, NatalyGómez Polo, CristinaOrtega, RocioAgustín Panadero, RubénGómez Polo, Miguel Ángel2024-04-292024-04-292023-10-01Cascos R, Celemín-Viñuela A, Mory-Rubiños N, Gómez-Polo C, Ortega R, Agustín-Panadero R, Gómez-Polo M. Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant–Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study. Materials. 2023; 16(19):653210.3390/ma16196532https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/1036382023 Descuentos MDPIThis in vitro study aimed to assess the presence of microgaps at the implant-abutment interface in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments.Methods: Sixty conical connection dental implants were divided into two groups (n = 30). The control group consisted of three-unit bridge monolithic zirconia connected to two implants by a transepithelial abutment. The test group consisted of monolithic zirconia three-unit restoration connected to two implants directly by a titanium base (Ti-base) abutment. The sample was subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, dwelling time 50 s) and chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N at frequencies of 2 Hz, at a 30 degrees angle). The microgap was evaluated at six points (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) of each implant-abutment interface by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U tests (p > 0.05).Results: The SEM analysis showed a smaller microgap at the implant-abutment interface in the control group (0.270 mu m) than in the test group (3.902 mu m). Statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (p < 0.05).Conclusions: The use or not of transepithelial abutments affects the microgap size. The transepithelial abutments group presented lower microgap values at the interface with the implant than the Ti-base group in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, both groups had microgap values within the clinically acceptable range.engAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/journal article1996-1944https//doi.org/10.3390/ma16196532https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/16/19/6532open access616.314-089.843616.314-089.28Dental implantsDental abutmentsDental implant–abutment designDental prosthesisImplant-supportedScanning electron microscopyImplantes dentalesAparatos y material odontológicos3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas3314 Tecnología Médica