Background: Marginal misfit and surface roughness of customized implant abutments is critical for restorative success. However, little is known about the comparison of misfit and surface roughness of CAD-CAM Zirconium oxide (ZrO), selective laser melting (SLM) Cobalt Chrome (CoCr) and preformed abutments. The aim of the study is to investigate the relation of misfit and micro-roughness of selective laser melting (SLM), preformed and CAD-CAM implant abutments. Methods: Thirty internal connection, endosseous dental implants (Ø 4.0 mm x 10 mm, Dentium) were mounted in Polymethyl methacrylate vertically. Ten preformed Titanium alloy (Ti) abutments with 1 mm soft tissue height and Ø 4.5 mm were included as controls. Ten each of Y-TZP and SLM-CoCr, abutment/crowns were fabricated using CAD-CAM milling (CAD-CAM-ZrO) and SLM techniques. Surface micro-roughness (Ra) of the fabricated implant abutment/crown was evaluated with a 3D optical non-contact microscope. All implant restorations were torqued to implants (30 Ncm) using a Tohnichi BTGE digital torque gauge and were analyzed with Bruker micro-CT (Skyscan 1173) to detect micro-gaps at pre-selected points at implant abutment interface. The Ra and misfit data were compared using ANOVA, Tukey-Kramer, Kruskal-Wallis test and Pearson correlation (p < 0.05). Results: Mean Ra among SLM CoCr abutments [0.88 (0.09) µm] were lower than CAD-CAM-ZrO and higher than preformed Ti abutments. Horizontal misfit among SLM-CoCr [45.43 (9.41) µm] and preformed Ti [36.87 (13.23) µm] abutments was not statistically different (p > 0.05). Misfit was significantly higher in Y-TZP samples compared to SLM-CoCr (p = 0.031) and preformed Ti abutments (p = 0.01). Preformed Ti abutments showed significantly lower misfit compared to SLM-CoCr abutments (p = 0.01). A positive linear correlation was observed between the surface roughness (Ra) and vertical misfit (r = 0.61, p < 0.05). Conclusion: SLM CoCr abutments showed rough surface compared to preformed Ti abutments, while horizontal misfit was comparable among SLM-CoCr and preformed abutments. Misfit was significantly greater in Y-TZP abutments, compared to SLM and preformed abutments. SLM abutment fabrication technique needs further improvement to provide better fit and surface topography.

Aim: This study aimed to compare the torque loss, fracture load, compressive strength, and failure types of selective-laser-sintered cobalt chromium (SLM-Co-Cr), computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing zirconium oxide (CAD-CAM-ZrO), and machined titanium (Ti) implant abutments. Methods: Thirty endosseous dental implants were vertically embedded with machined Ti (control group), CAD-CAM-ZrO, and SLM-Co-Cr abutments. Abutment fabrication involved CAD-CAM milling and SLM technology. The de-torque assessment included preload reverse torque values (RTVs), cyclic loading, and post-RTVs using a customized protocol. Fracture load assessment employed ISO-14801 standards, and statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA and Tukey Post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results: In pre-load RTVs, SLM-Co-Cr showed the lowest mean torque loss (24.30 ± 2.13), followed by machined Ti (27.33 ± 2.74) and CAD-CAM-ZrO (22.07 ± 2.20). Post-load RTVs decreased for all groups. Fracture load and compressive strength were highest for SLM-Co-Cr, with significant differences among groups (p < 0.001). Fracture types included abutment failures in SLM-Co-Cr and machined Ti, while CAD-CAM-ZrO exhibited crown separation with deformation. Conclusion: SLM-Co-Cr-fabricated implant abutments exhibited superior stability and resistance to rotational forces, higher fracture loads, and greater compressive strength compared to CAD-CAM-ZrO and machined Ti.