Maybe the first step is to define the types of where that you might get with dental implants. We usually talk about erosion, a chemical action that causes loss of two surface, abrasion, which would be the loss of tooth surface because of an intervening material such as a toothbrush or toothpaste and attrition, which is a wearing of the mating surfaces of the teeth. So bruxism or clenching would cause attrition, toothbrushing with or without the use of toothpaste is going to cause abrasion, erosion will because by intrinsic or extrinsic chemicals (extrinsic would be something like an acidic fruit material like oranges or grapefruit, intrinsic would be gastric reflux). There is also the category of abstraction which is somewhat hard to define. Have proactive lesions generally tend to be sharp at the dental enamel junction and are thought to occur because of slight movement or bending of the tooth and that's where the abstract of lesion occurs.

So are you trying to quantify the wear of teeth, in terms of the restorative material that would be placed on teeth supported by implants? Are you trying to quantify the amount of wear that occurs at the interface between an abutment and an implant?

Let's talk about the interface between an abutment and an implant. It will depend a lot upon the type of material that you are describing. You would prefer to have minimal wear of the implant and to concentrate all the where on the abutment (I'm using the term abutment to describe whatever it is that connects the prosthesis to the implant. We can have transmucosal abutments or we might have a prosthesis that is connected directly to the abutment that is connected to the implant. For all intents and purposes whether it's a transmucosal abutment or a prosthetic retaining component that fits directly to the implant you still have to be cognizant of the where that occurs between the components).

So the idea is to have the where concentrated on the part that can be replaced, the transmucosal abutment or the direct prosthesis connection. How you quantify the amount of wear it is difficult. Because it's very hard to make a three-dimensional impression of the interface especially when it's submucosal. We had a surgical microscope at Mayo that allow direct visualization of the interface, when you took apart the components and you could definitely see that there would be wear of either of the two surfaces. Measuring that amount of where in the clinical setting is difficult however. So then we go to the in vitro set up and we can look at the amount of where that occurs between the two components and the fact that we can disassemble the components and make surface calculations gives us a lot more ability to predict what will occur clinically.

So in a laboratory simulation you can look at the interface between the implant and whatever it is that you're putting on top of it and you should be able to do surface topography measurements and calculate what you are getting. Donna Hecker did a masters thesis on this process looking at the wear and where it concentrated. This was done with simulated errors and the idea was to look at the system and see if it occurred in the abutment side or if it occurred on the implant side. Once again, we didn't want to see implant wear.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dental literature suggests that an implant-supported prosthesis must exhibit a passive fit to prevent implant fracture, component breakage, and screw loosening. From a practical standpoint, passive fit is impossible to achieve; instead, minimal misfit may be the clinical goal. To date no specific range of misfit (below which problems are minimal and above which catastrophic failure occurs) has been established. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the fit of an implant-supported prosthesis changes through cyclic loading and to quantify the amount of change between the gold cylinder and implant abutment over time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen implant-supported frameworks were fabricated with conventional casting techniques and were cyclically loaded under 3 different loading conditions. Five frameworks were loaded on the anterior portion of the framework, 5 were loaded on the left unilateral posterior cantilever, and 5 were loaded bilaterally on the posterior cantilevers with a servohydraulic testing machine. A cyclical load of 200 N was applied to each framework for up to 200,000 cycles. Linear measurements were made in micrometers of the gap between the prosthetic cylinder and the implant-supported abutment at 4 predetermined reference points. These measurements were recorded before the application of the cyclical load, after 50,000 cycles, and after 200,000 cycles. A repeated measures of variance model was fit separately to the data for each load location (P

So, when you look at the interface between abutment and implant you can see that there is three-dimensional war but quantifying it in a clinical setting is going to be very difficult. From our standpoint, the big concern is how much of the wear occurs on irreplaceable parts? The implant, theoretically, should never have to be replaced, we are thinking theoretically here. The abutment can be replaced. So what you want is to have an abutment that is more susceptible to abrasion than an implant. Unfortunately this is not always the case. It is becoming less frequent today as we look at harder materials for abutments such as zirconia. Even when we look at titanium were far more likely to see titanium alloy in the abutment with a commercially pure grade one through four titanium for the implant. So if you have a titanium alloy abutment or a zirconia abutment and you place it in direct interfacial contact with the implant that is made of a, let's say grade 4 titanium, whatever where occurs is going to occur more rapidly on the implant interface than on the abutment.

I guess we would call this attrition because there is no third body that is placed between the two materials.

If you are talking about implant supported prostheses, the situation is much easier to evaluate. You can digitally scan the surface and use some subtractive technology to evaluate where the material was before you started functioning on it and where it is or how much is left after you've started functioning. In such a situation the interface between the abutment and the implant is still probably experiencing some degree of settling if you will due to minor attrition forces but as long as the prosthesis is fairly rigid you shouldn't get a major attrition wear at the implant abutment interface. You will get, on the occlusal surface, attrition and abrasion against the opposing tooth contacts. If those are natural teeth and if you used zirconia to fabricate your prosthesis the forces will cause more destruction of the opposing teeth. If you used poly methyl methacrylate wrapped around a titanium frame you will see more abrasion and attrition of the poly methyl methacrylate.

You probably won't see any erosion of the poly methyl methacrylate or of the zirconia. Neither one of those will dissolve in gastric fluids or in exogenous fluids.

The concepts as they relate to abrasion, attrition, erosion and whatever abstraction is, make some logical sense but we really don't usually use these terms to describe the interface between the implant and the prosthesis or implant in the abutment although we can say that that is more likely a two surface wear and that is generally what we call attrition. It is usually not a three surface wear, what we generally describe as abrasion.

I hope this all makes good sense. If you look at Donna's articles on this topic you won't get much information on the concept behind the process but you will see the results if you look at just the abstract. If you look at the entire article you will get a much better senses to why the research was done and how it might impact what we do especially as we have to remove prostheses for hygiene purposes periodically and the interfacial where between implants and abutments can become a relative nightmare if they are not thought about.

Thanks Steven E Eckert sir

My intention to know is volumetric analysis of few molecular loss

As the concentration of titanium has been measured in serum so volumetric analysis should be possible

I don't think that you will assess molecular loss through visual means. Indeed there is quantifiable titanium or titanium oxide in body fluids but this is not analyzed in imaging.

https://www.icoi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Glossary-of-Implant-Dentistry-3.pdf