LAUSR

This in vitro study aimed to use failure stress and implant abutment interface (IAI) microgap size to find the compromised axial angle range of angulated zirconia abutments with a titanium base in narrow diameter implants in the esthetic region. A three‐dimensional (3D) finite element model of maxillary central incisor implant prosthesis was reconstructed. Angulated zirconia abutments (0°, 15°, 30°, and − 15°) with a titanium base in narrow diameter implants (3.3 × 12 mm, Bone level, Roxolid SLActive, Straumann AG, Switzerland) were designed to simulate clinical scenarios of buccal inclination 0°, 15°, and 30°, and palatal inclination 15° of the implant long axis. Straight titanium abutment and pure titanium implant were used as two control groups. An oblique force at 30° inclination to the long axis of the crown was applied 3 mm below the incisal edge on the palatal surface of the prosthesis. Under simulated dynamic chewing force, the stress distribution of the implant components and surrounding bone were investigated. The relative micromotion displacement between the implant and abutment models at the IAI area was recorded, and the influence of tightening torque on the IAI microgap was evaluated. The angulation of the zirconia abutment could affect the stress value and IAI microgap of implant restorations. When the zirconia abutment angle increased from −15° to 30°, the stress on the central screw, titanium base, and surrounding bone tissue gradually increased by 9%, 20%, and 23%, respectively. The stress levels of the 30° zirconia abutment group showed the risk of exceeding the threshold. When the long axis of the implant was inclined in the palatal direction, the −15° angle abutment reduced the stress by 3% and reduced the strain level of the implant system by 17% and the surrounding bone tissue by 26%. Under simulated dynamic chewing load, the displacement between the implants and the abutment occurred in each group of the implant system, and the amplitude of the micromotion fluctuated with the change in the load. The horizontal displacement caused a 0.075–1.459 μm palatal microgap and 0.091–0.945 μm distal microgap in the IAI. The microgap between the lip and palate was more evident, and the vertical displacement difference was manifested as the abutment sliding down the implant. In cases of upper implant restoration with difficulties such as small gaps and axial defects in the esthetic zone, the abutment angle is highly recommended to be in a slightly palatal‐inclined direction or to not exceed 15° when the implant is inclined to the labial side to avoid mechanical damage and leakage caused by the appearance of excessively large micromotion gaps.