Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 3, 2026

Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Effect of cyclic load on vertical misfit of prefabricated and cast implant single abutment
Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavarez1, Wellington Cardoso Bonachela, Anuar Antônio Xible
1Maranhão University Center (UNICEUMA), São Luis, MA, Brazil.rudysd@uol.com.br
Objectives:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate misfit alterations at the implant/abutment interface of external and internal connection implant systems when subjected to cyclic loading.
Material And Methods:
Standard metal crowns were fabricated for 5 groups (n=10) of implant/abutment assemblies: Group 1, external hexagon implant and UCLA cast-on premachined abutment; Group 2, internal hexagon implant and premachined abutment; Group 3, internal octagon implant and prefabricated abutment; Group 4, external hexagon implant and UCLA cast-on premachined abutment; and Group 5, external hexagon implant and Ceraone abutment. For groups 1, 2, 3 and 5, the crowns were cemented on the abutments and in group 4 crowns were screwed directly on the implant. The specimens were subjected to 500,000 cycles at 19.1 Hz of frequency and non-axial load of 133 N in a MTS 810 machine. The vertical misfit (μm) at the implant/abutment interface was evaluated before (B) and after (A) application of the cyclic loading. Data were analyzed statistically by using two-away ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p<0.05).
Results:
Before loading values showed no difference among groups 2 (4.33 ± 3.13), 3 (4.79 ± 3.43) and 5 (3.86 ± 4.60); between groups 1 (12.88 ± 6.43) and 4 (9.67 ± 3.08), and among groups 2, 3 and 4. However, groups 1 and 4 were significantly different from groups 2, 3 and 5. After loading values of groups 1 (17.28 ± 8.77) and 4 (17.78 ± 10.99) were significantly different from those of groups 2 (4.83 ± 4.50), 3 (8.07 ± 4.31) and 5 (3.81 ± 4.84). There was a significant increase in misfit values of groups 1, 3 and 4 after cyclic loading, but not for groups 2 and 5.
Conclusions:
The cyclic loading and type of implant/abutment connection may develop a role on the vertical misfit at the implant/abutment interface.

