The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2015 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments with Different Diameters

Safoura Ghodsi, Reza Shabanpour, Niloufar Mousavi, Marzieh Alikhasi

Citation Information : Ghodsi S, Shabanpour R, Mousavi N, Alikhasi M. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments with Different Diameters. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (8):613-618.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1730

Published Online: 01-01-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).



The purpose of the current study was to compare the fracture resistance and mode of failure of zirconia and titanium abutments with different diameters.

Materials and methods

Fourteen groups of abutments including prefabricated zirconia, copy-milled zirconia and titanium abutments of an implant system (XiVE, Dentsply) were prepared in different diameters. An increasing vertical load was applied to each specimen until failure occurred. Fracture resistance was measured in each group using the universal testing machine. Moreover, the failure modes were studied and categorized as abutment screw fracture, connection area fracture, abutment body fracture, abutment body distortion, screw distortion and connection area distortion. Groups were statistically compared using univariate and post-hoc tests. The level of statistical significance was set at 5%.


Fabrication method (p = 0.03) and diameter (p < 0.001) had significant effect on the fracture resistance of abutments. Fracture resistance of abutments with 5.5 mm diameter was higher than other diameters (p < 0.001). The observed modes of failure were dependent on the abutment material as well. All of the prefabricated titanium abutments fractured within the abutment screw. Abutment screw distortion, connection area fracture, and abutment body fracture were the common failure type in other groups.


Diameter had a significant effect on fracture resistance of implant abutments, as abutments with greater diameters were more resistant to static loads. Copy-milled abutments showed lower fracture resistance as compared to other experimental groups.

Clinical significance

Although zirconia abutments have received great popularity among clinicians and even patients selecting them for narrow implants should be with caution.

How to cite this article

Shabanpour R, Mousavi N, Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments with Different Diameters. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):613-618.

PDF Share
  1. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(4):347-359.
  2. Experimental zirconia abutments for implantsupported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(3):285-290.
  3. Strength and mode of failure of single implant all-ceramic abutment restorations under static load. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(3):265-272.
  4. Implants in the esthetic zone. Dent Clin North Am 2006;50(3):391-407.
  5. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(6):639-644.
  6. High-strength ceramic abutment provides esthetic, functional alternative. Dent Implantol Update 1991;2(8):70-72.
  7. Bending moments and types of failure of zirconia and titanium abutments with internal implant-abutment connections: a laboratory study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(3):505-512.
  8. Influence of surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of Y-TZP dental ceramic. J Dent 2005;33(1):9-18.
  9. Reliability and properties of ground Y-TZP-zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res 2002;81(7):487-491.
  10. The effect of pressure on a maximum incisal bite force in man. Arch Oral Biol 1997;42(1): 11-17.
  11. Fracture resistance of yttria-stabilized zirconia dental implant abutments. J Prosthodont 2009;18(1):17-22.
  12. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(6):604-610.
  13. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28(4):996-1002.
  14. Comparison of fracture resistance and fit accuracy of customized zirconia abutments with prefabricated zirconia abutments in internal hexagonal implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15(5):769-778.
  15. Computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing in prosthetic implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:110-117.
  16. In vitro fatigue and fracture strength testing of one-piece zirconia implant abutments and zirconia implant abutments connected to titanium cores. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28(2):488-493.
  17. Survival rate, fracture strength and failure mode of ceramic implant abutments after chewing simulation. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(11):838-843.
  18. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(4):325-331.
  19. Zirconium implant abutments: fracture strength and influence of cyclic loading on retaining-screw loosening. Quintessence Int 2006;37(1):19-26.
  20. In vitro study of the influence of the type of connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(5):850-858.
  21. Reliability and fatigue damage modes of zirconia and titanium abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23(1):56-59.
  22. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2014;29:308-324.
  23. A comparison of fabrication precision and mechanical reliability of 2 zirconia implant abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23(6):1029-1036.
  24. Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for canine and posterior single-tooth implant reconstructions: preliminary results at 1 year of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(3):219-225.
  25. Mechanical analysis of conventional and small diameter conical implant abutments. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4(3):158-161.
  26. Fracture resistance of titanium and zirconia abutments: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109(5):304-312.
  27. Critical effect of cubic phase on aging in 3 mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics for hip replacement prosthesis. Biomaterials 2004;25(24):5539-5545.
  28. A critical comparison of methods for the determination of the aging sensitivity in biomedical grade yttria-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;72(2):239-245.
  29. Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95(2):111-116.
  30. Effect of dental implant diameter on fatigue performance. Part II: failure analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(2):178-184.
  31. Fatigue test analysis of two esthetic implant abutments [dissertation]. [New York]: New York University; 2004. p. 92.
  32. Evaluation of loading conditions on fatigue-failed implants by fracture surface analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20(6): 854-859.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.