Resistance to dynamic and static loading of the implant mounts on its respective implant

Introduction: Implant restorations should endure a variable range of forces over long period time. Some commercial brands offer the implant together with an accessory called “implant mount” or holder,” which might be used as temporary abutment. However, scientific literature in use holders abutments for is scarce.Objectives: The purpose this vitro study was to compare load at Direct® and Zimmer® fail under static compression after being subjected fatigue, gap produced between implant–holder complexes dynamic loading.Materials Methods: test protocol based on recommendation ISO 14801. Five implant–implant holder assemblies each brand were loading. A 250 N applied 5 × 106 cycles 15 Hz stress frequency (Eden Prairie, MN, USA). (μm) interface measured postfatigue using scanning electron microscopy (S-3700N, HITACHI, Japan), afterward, loading maximum (N) point failure established. Implant–definitive abutment controls. Data analyzed by means central tendency measurement Mann–Whitney U-test (nonparametric).Results: There no difference both groups (P ≤ 0.05); however, slight trend greater resistance observed group. implants, but not statistically significant.Conclusion: No significant differences found terms two experimental groups.