{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027842227378190254, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008507347254447023, 'mean_word_length': 5.3431372549019605, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The effect of different implant abutment materials on the stress distribution to the bone implant contact

Purpose: evaluating the effect of different implant-abutment materials on the stress distribution to the bone-implant contact using histomorphometric analysis. Materials and methods: In the experimental animal work fifteen adult male dogs were selected; the third premolar on the right side of the mandible was extracted. Titanium implant fixture inserted in the socket then left for three months for healing. Grouping: 5Titanium, 5 zirconia and 5 BIOHPP abutments were screwed on the implant fixtures (five dogs for each one). Impression was taken to fabricate crowns allowing the dogs to masticate on it for the other three months, and then all dogs were euthanized. Block sections from the mandible were taken, prepared for histomorphometric analysis (scanning electron microscope), and then BIC% was measured. Results: SEM: showed that BIC% was higher in BIOHPP abutment followed by Zirconium abutment and titanium abutment with a significant statistical difference between the three groups (F = 4.222, P = 0.025) Conclusion: Using more flexible abutment material (BIOHPP) transmitted fewer stresses on the surrounding bone with better bone-implant contact than the rigid materials.