种植体基桩高度和表面积对三种粘结剂粘固效果的影响

目的：观察氧化锌丁香油水门汀（ZOE）、聚羧酸锌水门汀（PCC）、玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）对不同高度和表面积的种植基桩固位力的影响。方法：制备高度分别为3、4、5、6、7mm的5种不同高度的种植基桩及与基桩相匹配的金属基底冠。将不同高度基桩分为三组,分别用ZOE,PCC和GIC粘结金属基底冠和基桩。通过推拉力计测量垂直方向的脱位力。采用F检验,SNK-q和t检验比较各组数据之间的差异,比较基桩高度和表面积与脱位力之间的相关性。结果：在同一种粘结剂的粘结作用下,基底冠与不同高度的基桩产生的脱位力之间存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）;不同的粘结剂对不同高度和表面积的基桩与基底冠产生的脱位力之间部分存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）;基桩的高度和表面积与脱位力之间呈正相关关系（P〈0.05）。结论：基桩的高度和表面积对基桩的固位力有明显影响,当基桩高度较低时,不足以提供足够的固位力。基桩的高度和表面积均能较好地代表固位力     

不同粘固剂粘接金属冠与种植体钛基桩的固位力研究

目的:比较不同冠修复材料和不同粘固剂对种植体基桩与全冠之间粘固力的影响。方法:加工镍铬合金冠、钴铬合金冠、高金合金冠及钛合金冠各24个,每种金属冠分别使用玻璃离子水门汀、聚羧酸锌水门汀、磷酸锌水门汀、EB复合树脂粘固于钛基桩之上,测试拉伸强度。结果:4种金属冠在基底冠与钛基桩之间的固位力分别为542.11 N,560.45 N,843.14 N,780.70 N;4种粘固剂在冠与钛基桩之间的固位力分别614.33 N,606.67 N,708.38 N,797.03 N。结论:高金合金冠与钛基桩之间的粘接力最高,EB复合树脂粘接效果明显优于其他3种无机粘固剂。     

四种粘固剂对种植体钛基桩与非贵金属金瓷基底冠之间固位力的影响

目的：比较四种粘固剂对种植体钛基桩与金瓷（非贵金属）基底冠之间粘结力的影响。方法：24个纯钛基桩和镍铬烤瓷合金基底冠，分为4组，分别使用玻璃离子水门汀、聚羧酸锌水门汀、磷酸锌水门汀、EB复合树脂粘固，测试拉伸强度。结果：4种粘固剂在基桩与基底冠之间产生的固位力分别为485．75N，504．33N，552．31N，626，06N。结论：使用EB复合树脂粘结钛基桩和金瓷基底冠时，固位力明显优于其它三种尤机粘固剂。     

不同被粘结材料对5种水门汀粘结性能的影响

目的 分析不同被粘材料对水门汀粘结性能的影响,为临床烤瓷冠粘结时选择合适的水门汀材料提供科学依据.方法 模拟临床使用状况,设计镍铬合金-钴铬合金、镍铬合金-离体牙、镍铬合金-树脂等三种不同组合的被粘结材料,分别选用国产增强型玻璃离子水门汀(RGC)、增强型聚羧酸锌水门汀(RPC)和增强型磷酸锌水门汀(RZPC),以及日产玻璃离子水门汀(CX)和聚羧酸锌水门汀(CE)共5种水门汀进行粘结,测试并比较5种水门汀在不同被粘结材料组合下的剪切粘结强度.结果 5种水门汀在镍铬合金-钴铬合金组合中均表现出最高的粘结强度(7.38～9.14MPa),在镍铬合金-离体牙组合中,粘结强度由高到低排列为:CX>CE>RGC>RPC>RZPC,在镍铬合金-树脂组合中,其顺序为:CX>RGC>CE>RZPC>RPC.结论 水门汀的牯结性能与被粘结材料的性质密切相关.     

粘结剂使用方式对全酸蚀树脂水门汀与牙本质粘结性能影响的研究

目的评价粘结剂的3种不同使用方式（不使用粘结剂,粘结剂不固化及粘结剂固化10 s）对全酸蚀树脂水门汀与牙本质间粘结性能的影响。方法新鲜拔除的无龋人第三磨牙45颗,随机分为9组（n=5）,流水降温下磨除冠部牙釉质,制备标准牙本质粘结面,酸蚀冲洗后表面按全酸蚀粘结技术处理,牙本质粘结剂处理方式按设计进行,然后与3种全酸蚀树脂水门汀（Rely X ARC、Calibra、VariolinkⅡ）粘结并测试微拉伸粘结强度,用扫描电镜观察粘结界面。结果对于3种全酸蚀树脂水门汀,不使用粘结剂组未测得粘结强度;粘结剂不固化组及粘结剂固化10 s组均获得较为满意的粘结强度,不固化组的微拉伸粘结强度（15.534±2.099;22.827±6.968;10.736±3.199）显著高于粘结剂固化10 s组（13.476±2.710;14.076±5.165;7.736±3.052）（P〈0.05）。结论①全酸蚀树脂水门汀应结合粘结剂同时使用。②牙本质涂布粘结剂后不单独固化可显著提高全酸蚀树脂水门汀与牙本质的粘结强度。     

三种粘接材料对种植牙冠短期固位和可拆卸性影响的研究

目的:比较玻璃离子、聚羧酸锌和Premier暂时性树脂三种水门汀对粘结固位种植牙冠短期固位和可拆卸性的影响,指导临床选择种植固定义齿的粘接剂。方法:在ITI标准颈纯钛基台上制作前磨牙镍铬金属冠9个,分别用玻璃离子、聚羧酸锌、Premier暂时性树脂三种水门汀粘结于基台上。通过拉伸试验和去冠器冲击试验两种取冠方法测试牙冠脱位所需要的最大载荷值和震动次数。结果:拉伸试验取冠平均脱位载荷值:聚羧酸锌水门汀[(200.28±38.68)N]、玻璃离子水门汀[(137.945±46.720)N]、Premier暂时性粘接树脂水门汀[(103.708±23.727)N]。聚羧酸锌水门汀与玻璃离子水门汀、Premier暂时性树脂水门汀的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),玻璃离子水门汀与Premier暂时性树脂水门汀的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。去冠器取冠平均脱位震动次数:Premier暂时性树脂水门汀(17.667±4.055次)、聚羧酸锌水门汀(3.222±1.474次)、玻璃离子水门汀(1.778±0.786次)。Premier暂时性树脂水门汀与聚羧酸锌水门汀、玻璃离子水门汀的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);聚羧酸锌水门汀与玻璃离子水门汀的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:聚羧酸锌水门汀有较大的粘接力和较好的可拆卸性,能满足粘接固位种植牙冠的固位要求;玻璃离子水门汀有较好的可拆卸性,但粘接力中等;专用种植粘接水门汀Premier粘接力中等,但可拆卸性较差。     

不同金属卡环在钴铬金属冠上的固位力衰减及对冠表面磨损的研究

目的：研究不同材质铸造卡环作用于钴铬合金全冠时固位力变化规律，及对冠表面磨损的影响。方法：制作模拟天然牙外形的钴铬合金冠和钴铬合金卡环、纯钛卡环的标准试件，分2组进行1500次反复脱位和就位实验，测试比较脱位力峰值的衰减曲线，并用扫描电子显微镜观察冠表面的磨损情况。结果：（1）2组脱位力的峰值变化均呈现两段式，前段逐步衰减，后段则保持在较稳定的水平，且稳定后钴铬卡环组的力值〈纯钛卡环组。（2）实验前后在钴铬合金全冠定点处磨损程度，纯钛卡环组〈钴铬合金卡环组。结论：钴铬合金卡环、纯钛卡环在钴铬合金全冠上，均能提供足够的固位力，衰减剧烈程度纯钛卡环组〈钴铬卡环组；对于冠表面的磨损程度，纯钛卡环组〈钴铬卡环组。     

纯钛基桩与其镍铬合金全冠的粘接固位力研究

目的　旨在探讨现有的三种常用水门汀在纯钛种植体基桩上的全冠固位力差异。方法　通过精密机床技术加工凹形龈缘种植体基桩的纯钛代型 10个 ,按全冠要求制作熔模 ,常规包埋后用烤瓷合金 (镍铬合金 )铸造。用自凝塑料包裹全冠 ,通过万能实验机测量记录分别用氧化锌丁香酚、磷酸锌、玻璃离子水门汀粘接后的全冠固位力大小。结果　氧化锌丁香酚、磷酸锌、玻璃离子水门汀粘接的冠固位力分别为 6 1.5 0± 7.40N、2 81.35±2 3 .2 2N、2 46 .95± 2 0 .10N。结论　在纯钛基桩上 ,氧化锌丁香酚水门汀提供的冠固位力要远小于永久性粘固剂 ,磷酸锌水门汀表现出的冠固位力显著高于玻璃离子     

不同涂布方式对牙本质粘结微拉伸强度的影响

目的:观察不同涂布方式对4种牙本质粘结剂牙本质微拉伸粘结强度的影响。方法:选择80个离体前磨牙制备牙本质粘结面后,随机分为16组,每组5个,分别以轻涂(G)、重涂(V)、涂1层(1)、涂2层(2)等不同方式涂布牙本质粘结剂,并修复树脂"冠"。CMT7104型万能材料测试机测试各组试件的微拉伸强度。结果:不同涂布方式下4种牙本质粘结剂的微拉伸粘结强度依次是G2组>V2组>V1组>G1组;G2组明显高于其他3组(P<0.05);V1组和G1组间、V1和V2无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:不同涂布方式对牙本质粘结剂微拉伸强度具有一定的影响,轻涂2遍(G2)获得的微拉伸强度最高。     

套简冠固位力不同调节方式的体外比较

目的:应用裂隙冠技术与常规技术制作的套筒冠进行体外模拟实验,探讨并完善非贵金属套筒冠固位力的调节方式.方法:制作标准金属试件27个,随机分为3组,常规钴铬合金组、钴铬合金裂隙冠组和金钯合金组,每组9个,循环摘戴后测其固位力值.采用SPSS12.0软件包对数据进行单因素方差分析.结果:金钯合金组与钴铬合金裂隙冠组比常规钴铬合金组固位力大,差异有显著性(P＜0.05);钴铬合金裂隙冠组的最大固位力大于金钯合金组,差异有显著性(P＜0.05);金钯合金组和钴铬合金裂隙冠组比较,循环次数为800次时,差异无显著性(P＞0.05);其他循环次数,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:裂隙冠技术使套简冠固位力下降的效果与贵金属相近,提示钴铬合金裂隙冠可以弥补非贵金属在固位上的不足.     

不同基底材料的瓷修复体用于种植修复时抵抗压力载荷的比较

目的比较不同基底材料的瓷修复体用于种植修复时的抗压强度。方法分别基于离体牙(对照组)和种植基台制作钴铬合金烤瓷、钛烤瓷、贵金属烤瓷(75%Au合金)和全瓷修复体,粘接后在咬合面进行循环加载,直至出现修复体瓷层破坏,记录最大加载次数。结果四种修复体,用于离体基牙时出现破坏的最大加载次数(万次)分别为159.3±6.7,147.7±2.4,149.5±3.3和138.6±7.1;用于种植基台时分别为167.6±2.7,149.7±6.5,152.8±4.3和122.0±4.6。钴铬烤瓷修复用于种植基台时比用于离体基牙时可承受更多的加载次数(P<0.05),而全瓷修复体则相反(P<0.05);用于种植基台修复时,钴铬烤瓷承受加载次数较多,而全瓷修复体可承受的加载次数最少,均有统计学意义(P<0.05),钛烤瓷及贵金属烤瓷居中。结论针对种植体基台瓷修复体,较高弹性模量的钴铬合金烤瓷抗压强度最好,全瓷修复相对较差。     

The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: In immediate implant loading, it is important to keep provisional restorations in place during early-phase healing. Current luting agents for provisional restorations may provide inadequate retention, creating a clinical challenge. PURPOSE: This study compared the retention of provisional autopolymerizing acrylic resin implant-supported single restorations with combinations of different implant abutment surface conditions and provisional luting agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty solid titanium implant abutments (ITI), 4 mm high, were divided into 3 groups. Ten abutments were unaltered, 10 were airborne-particle abraded with 50-microm aluminum oxide, and 10 were roughened with a medium-roughness diamond rotary cutting instrument. Thirty implant analogs (ITI) were mounted in autopolymerizing acrylic resin blocks. A solid titanium implant abutment was placed in each implant analog and torqued to 35 N.cm. After fabrication of 4 provisional acrylic resin crowns for each abutment, provisional luting agents TempBond, TempBond NE, Life, and Zone were used to secure the provisional crowns to the respective abutments. All specimens were luted with one of the provisional luting agents for a given test. After ultrasonic cleaning of the abutments, another provisional crown was luted with another luting agent. All specimens were stored in 100% humidity environment for 1 day at 37 degrees C prior to testing. Each provisional acrylic resin crown was pulled from the abutment with a 500-kg load cell in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 cm/minute, and tensile strength was recorded (N). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Scheffe test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Tensile strength was significantly higher for Life and TempBond NE than for TempBond and Zone, regardless of the surface conditions (P=.0001). The result of the 2-way ANOVA indicated that a significant interaction existed between the provisional luting agents and surface conditions (P=.0039). TempBond NE showed significantly higher tensile strength when combined with airborne-particle-abraded surfaces compared to other combinations (P=.011). However, no difference was found in tensile strength of Life and Zone between different combinations. The tensile strength of TempBond was lower when used with the unaltered surface compared to other combinations (P=.001). CONCLUSION: Surface modification of an implant abutment by airborne-particle abrasion or diamond rotary cutting instrument did not improve retention of a provisional acrylic crown when Life or Zone was used as the luting agent. Airborne-particle abrasion may be an effective method to increase retention of a provisional acrylic crown when TempBond NE is used.     

Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components.

There is limited dental literature evaluating the retentive capabilities of luting agents when used between metal components, such as cast metal restorations cemented onto machined metal implant abutments. This study compared the retentive strengths of 5 different classes of luting agents used to cement cast noble metal alloy crowns to 8-degree machined titanium cementable implant abutments from the Straumann ITI Implant System. Sixty prefabricated 5.5-mm solid titanium implant abutments and implants were used; 30 received the standard surface preparation and the other 30 received an anodized surface preparation. Anodized implant components were used to reflect current implant marketing. Sixty castings were fabricated and randomly paired with an abutment and implant. A total of 12 castings were cemented onto the implant-abutment assemblies for each of the 5 different luting agents (zinc phosphate, resin composite, glass ionomer, resin-reinforced glass ionomer, and zinc oxide-non-eugenol). After cementation, the assemblies were stored in a humidor at room temperature prior to thermocycling for 24 hours. Each casting was pulled from its respective abutment, and the force at which bond failure occurred was recorded as retentive strength. A statistically significant difference was found between the 5 cements at P < or = .001. Of the cements used, resin composite demonstrated the highest mean retentive strength. Zinc phosphate and resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cements were the next most retentive, while glass ionomer and zinc oxide-non-eugenol cements demonstrated minimal retention. In addition, retention was not altered by the use of an anodized abutment surface.     

In vitro influence of ultrasonic stress, removal force preload and thermocycling on the retrievability of implant-retained crowns

Objectives: The main goals of this in vitro study were to evaluate the influence of thermocycling, ultrasonic stress and the removal force preload on the retrievability of cemented implant crowns using a clinical removal device (Coronaflex) and evaluating the tensile strength using a universal testing machine (UTM). Methods: Thirty‐six crowns were cast from a Co–Cr alloy for 36 tapered titanium abutments (5° taper, 4.3 mm diameter, 6 mm height, Camlog, Germany). The crowns were cemented with a glass‐ionomer (Ketac Cem) or a polycarboxylate (Durelon) cement, followed by 3 days of storage in ionized water without thermocycling or 150 days of storage with 37,500 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. Before removal, the crowns were subjected to ultrasonic stress for 0, 5 or 10 min with a contact pressure of either 50 or 500 g. The Coronaflex was used with a removal force preload of 50 or 400 cN, respectively, applied on the point of loading. Scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) was used to evaluate the impact of the removal on the abutment screws. Results: Crowns cemented with the glass‐ionomer cement were significantly easier to remove with the Coronaflex or the UTM than crowns cemented with the polycarboxylate cement (P≤ 0.05). Ultrasonic stress showed no significant impact on the retrievability regardless of the contact pressure or duration applied (P>0.05). No significant differences could be found for both cements when removed with the Coronaflex or the UTM (P>0.05) after thermocycling was applied. A removal force preload of 400 cN resulted in significantly reduced removal attempts in comparison with 50 cN for both cements (P≤ 0.05). Conclusions: Ultrasound and thermal cycling did not result in reduced cement strength, but to retrieve the crowns, the full impact of a removal instrument has to be applied. Ketac Cem can be used as a “semipermanent” solution, whereas Durelon might serve for permanent cementation. None of the abutment screws showed signs of wear caused by the removal process. To cite this article :
Mehl C, Harder S, Schwarz D, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. In vitro influence of ultrasonic stress, removal force preload and thermocycling on retrievability of implant retained crowns.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23 , 2012; 930–937
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02236.x     

Effects of surface conditioning on the retentiveness of titanium crowns over short implant abutments

PURPOSE: The integrity and retention of cemented restorations over implant abutments is difficult to achieve when the axial wall height of the abutment is short. PURPOSE:: To compare the effect of different surface conditions on the retentiveness of titanium crowns cemented over short (3 mm) ITI solid abutments using 2 types of cement. Surface pretreatment included sandblasting, silicoating, and application of alloy primer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-eight ITI implants and solid abutments 5.5 mm in height were divided into six groups. The axial height of abutments in group I was unaltered to serve as a control. The remaining abutments in (groups II-VI) were reduced to a 3-mm height. Groups I and II were luted with ZnPO4 cement without any surface pretreatment. In groups III and IV, the fit surface of the castings and solid abutments were sandblasted, before luting, with ZnPO4 or Panavia 21, respectively. In group V castings and abutments were sandblasted, pretreated with Siloc Bond, and luted with Panavia 21. In group VI castings and abutments were sandblasted, pretreated with alloy primer, and luted with Panavia 21. Crown retention was measured using a universal testing machine after 1 week of storage in water at 37 degrees C. RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed a highly significant difference among the groups. Sandblasted castings and abutments pretreated with alloy primer or Siloc Bond before luting with Paravia 21 resin cement exhibited the greatest retentive strength (P < 0.05). Castings luted with zinc phosphate over short ITI solid abutment exhibited the lowest retention (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The retention of titanium castings luted over ITI solid abutments was influenced by axial height, surface texture, surface pretreatment, and type of cement. Phosphoric alloy primer is more effective and less technique sensitive than the Siloc Bond with regard to retention enhancement of titanium castings over short ITI solid abutment.     

Glass fiber-reinforced abutments for dental implants. A pilot study

Titanium abutments in dental implants shine through all-ceramic crowns and therefore limit excellent esthetic results. Prototypes of tooth-colored fiber-reinforced abutments were investigated to avoid the shining-through effect. In vitro, the fracture strength was determined after thermal cycling and mechanical loading of all-ceramic single crowns and four-unit bridges made of a fiber-reinforced composite. The suprastructures were adhesively fixed onto fiber-reinforced implant abutments and compared with those fixed on standard titanium abutments. The median of the fracture strength of the titanium-supported all-ceramic crowns was significantly higher than the median of crowns fixed onto the prototypes. But this value was still more than twice as high as the maximum loading force under oral conditions. No statistical difference was found between four-unit bridges made by fiber-reinforced composite inserted onto titanium abutments and those inserted onto fiber-reinforced abutments. Fiber-reinforced abutment prototypes for dental implants avoided the shining-through effect associated with metal abutments. Their load-bearing capacity after in vitro stress simulation was higher than the maximum oral loading force. With some improvements, the fiber-reinforced implant abutments are therefore a promising alternative to titanium abutments.     

Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments

Background: The cementation of crowns to dental implant abutments is an accepted form of crown retention that requires consideration of the properties of available cements within the applied clinical context. Dental luting agents are exposed to a number of stressors that may reduce crown retention in vivo, not the least of which is occlusal loading. This study investigated the influence of compressive cyclic loading on the physical retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Methods: Cast crown copings were cemented to Straumann synOcta titanium implant abutments with three different readily used and available cements. Specimens were placed in a humidifier, thermocycled and subjected to one of four quantities of compressive cyclic loading. The uniaxial tensile force required to remove the cast crown copings was then recorded. Results: The mean retention values for crown copings cemented with Panavia‐F cement were statistically significantly greater than both KetacCem and TempBond non‐eugenol cements at each compressive cyclic loading quantity. KetacCem and TempBond non‐eugenol cements produced relatively low mean retention values that were not statistically significantly different at each quantity of compressive cyclic loading. Compressive cyclic loading had a statistically significant effect on Panavia‐F specimens alone, but increased loading quantities produced no further statistically significant difference in mean retention. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current in vitro conditions employed in this study, the retention of cast crown copings cemented to Straumann synOcta implant abutments with a resin, glass ionomer and temporary cement was significantly affected by cement type but not compressive cyclic loading. Resin cement is the cement of choice for the definitive non‐retrievable cementation of cast crown copings to Straumann synOcta implant abutments out of the three cements tested.     

The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cement-retained implant restorations

Objectives: To evaluate the effects and interactions between cement type, abutment height and surface roughness on bond strength of cemented implant restorations. Materials and methods: One hundred and sixty metal copings were fabricated and divided into 16 groups of 10 samples each. Copings were cemented on 4 and 6 mm height Alfa‐Gate^® abutment, using four types of cements: zinc phosphate (ZNP), glass ionomer (GI), and zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) with or without 15% vaseline. Copings were removed using a universal testing machine and bond strengths were recorded. All abutments were sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide and the experiment was repeated. Results were analyzed using univariate analysis, Games–Howell, and Bonferroni's pairwise comparisons tests at P≤0.05. Results: Bond strengths were significantly different according to cement type, abutment height, and surface roughness (P=0.001). The cement ranking from highest to lowest was: ZNP>GI>ZOE>zinc oxide eugenol with 15% vaseline (ZOEV). An increasing abutment height showed a significant increase in bond strength for permanent cements only (P≤0.05). Sandblasting abutment surface significantly the increased bond strength for all cement except the ZOEV at 4 mm abutment, and for only ZOE and GI cements at the 6 mm abutment (P≤0.05). Conclusions: ZP was the strongest cement and required using one of the variables (height, surface roughness) for maximum bond strength. GI bond strength was increased by both variables but sandblasting was more effective. ZOE required using both variables to be as effective as some of the permanent cement subgroups. ZOEV was the weakest and bond strength was not improved by either variables. To cite this article:
Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Abu‐Sitta EH. The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cement‐retained implant restorations.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 638–644
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02011.x     

Fracture behavior of straight or angulated zirconia implant abutments supporting anterior single crowns

The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of artificial aging on the fracture behavior of straight and angulated zirconia implant abutments (ZirDesign?; Astra Tech, Mölndal, Sweden) supporting anterior single crowns (SCs). Four different test groups (n?=?8) representing anterior SCs were prepared. Groups 1 and 2 simulated a clinical situation with an ideal implant position (left central incisor) from a prosthetic point of view, which allows for the use of a straight, prefabricated zirconia abutment. Groups 3 and 4 simulated a situation with a compromised implant position, requiring an angulated (20°) abutment. OsseoSpeed? implants (Astra Tech) 4.5 mm in diameter and 13 mm in length were used to support the abutments. The SCs (chromium cobalt alloy) were cemented with glass ionomer cement. Groups 2 and 4 were thermomechanically loaded (TCML?=?1.2?×?10⁶; 10,000?×?5°/55°) and subjected to static loading until failure. Statistical analysis of force data at the fracture site was performed using nonparametric tests. All samples tested survived TCML. Artificial aging did not lead to a significant decrease in load-bearing capacity in either the groups with straight abutments or the groups with angulated abutments. The restorations that utilized angulated abutments exhibited higher fracture loads than the restorations with straight abutments (group 1, 280.25?±?30.45 N; group 2, 268.88?±?38.00 N; group 3, 355.00?±?24.71 N; group 4, 320.71?±?78.08 N). This difference in load-bearing performance between straight and angulated abutments was statistically significant (p?=?0.000) only when no artificial aging was employed. The vast majority of the abutments fractured below the implant shoulder.