(1) Background: The stability of implants plays a significant role in the success of osseointegration. The stability of the connection between the fixture and the abutment is one of the critical factors affecting osseointegration. When restoring multiple, non-parallel, and splinted implants, achieving a passive fit can be complicated and challenging. A new EZ post non-engaging abutment system of the BlueDiamond^® (BD) implant allows a wide connection angle while achieving a passive prosthesis fit. This study aimed to confirm the new abutment system’s clinical applicability by evaluating its biomechanical characteristics using finite element analysis (FEA). (2) Methods: The implant-supported fixed three-unit dental prostheses model was reproduced for two groups of AnyOne^® (AO) and BD implants using FEA. The loading conditions were a preload of 200 N in the first step and loads of 100 N (axial), 100 N (15°), or 30 N (45°) in the second step. (3) Results: The peak Von Mises stress (PVMS) value of the fixture in the BD group was more than twice that in the AO group. In contrast, the PVMS values of the abutment and abutment screws were lower in the BD group than in the AO group. The AO group revealed higher maximal principal stress (MPS) values than that of the BD group in the cortical bone, cancellous bone, and crown. The average stress of the outer surface of the abutment was lower in the AO group than in the BD group. The stress distribution for the inner surface of the fixture confirmed that the BD group displayed a lower stress distribution than the AO group under axial and 15° loads; however, the average stress was 1.5 times higher at the 45° load. The stress values of the entire surface where the cortical and cancellous bone were in contact with the fixture were measured. The AO group showed a higher stress value than the BD group in both cortical and cancellous bone. (4) Conclusions: In the AO group, the PVMS value of the fixture and the stress distribution at the contact surface between the fixture and the abutment were lower than those of the BD group, suggesting that the stability of the fixture would be high. However, due to the high stress in the fastening area of the abutment and abutment screw, the risk of abutment fracture in the AO group is higher than that of the BD group. Therefore, the new EZ post non-engaging abutment of the BD implant can be used without any problems in clinics, similar to the non-engaging abutment of the AO implant, which has been widely used in clinical practice.

Dental implants rely on precise prosthetic design and biomechanical stability to ensure long-term success. This study evaluates the mechanical performance of non-engaging abutments in multi-unit combined screw- and cement-retained prostheses (CSCRP) using two internal implant systems: the BlueDiamond (BD) and AnyOne (AO) systems. Unlike conventional implant systems that utilize the same type of screw for both engaging and non-engaging abutments, the BD system employs a distinct screw design for non-engaging abutments. A total of 80 implants were tested, with 40 in each group. Mechanical testing included static compressive load and fatigue tests following ISO 14801 standards. The BD system demonstrated significantly higher compressive strength (326.32 kgf vs. 231.82 kgf, p < 0.001) and 23.4% greater fatigue strength compared to the AO system. Precision fit analysis confirmed no significant deformation, microcracks, or fractures after 5 million loading cycles. These findings suggest that the BD system’s unique screw design for non-engaging abutments contributes to improved mechanical performance and durability. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the long-term implications of this design on prosthetic stability and implant longevity.

This randomized controlled clinical trial compared a conventional combined screw- and cement-retained prosthesis (CSCRP) workflow (control group) with a fully digital cementless screw-retained prosthesis (CL-SRP) system (test group) for single posterior implant restorations. A total of 40 implants in 35 patients were allocated to either workflow. Clinical procedure times, prosthetic accuracy, peri-implant soft tissue changes, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were assessed. The test group demonstrated significantly shorter total prosthetic time (p < 0.001) and impression-taking time (p < 0.001) compared with the control group. Prosthetic adjustment time (p = 0.211) and adjustment volume (p = 0.474) did not differ significantly. Gingival shape changes were likewise not statistically significant (p = 0.966). MBL was significantly lower in the test group (p < 0.05). From a prosthetic standpoint, both workflows yielded clinically acceptable outcomes; however, the digital CL-SRP approach improved procedural efficiency and early peri-implant bone preservation without compromising prosthetic quality. This trial had inherent limitations, including a short follow-up duration, a relatively small sample size, combined test conditions, and restriction to single posterior implants. Therefore, further long-term studies are warranted to confirm durability and broader clinical applicability.