The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Determination of Inner Implant's Volumes: A Pilot Study for Microleakage Quantification by Stereomicroscopy and Spectrophotometry

A Berberi, G Tehini, Z Tabaja, A Kobaissi, K Hamze, K Rifai, M Ezzedine, B Badran, A Chokr

Citation Information : Berberi A, Tehini G, Tabaja Z, Kobaissi A, Hamze K, Rifai K, Ezzedine M, Badran B, Chokr A. Determination of Inner Implant's Volumes: A Pilot Study for Microleakage Quantification by Stereomicroscopy and Spectrophotometry. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (6):1122-1130.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1462

Published Online: 01-12-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Microleakage quantification of fluids and microorganisms through the connections of different implant parts seems to be sparse. Moreover, no data exist regarding the determination of the volumes of inner parts of dental implant systems.

This study aims to determine the volumes of inner parts of three dental implant systems with the same interface and to evaluate the microleakage phenomenon.

Materials and methods

Three implant system sets (Euroteknika ®, Astra Tech® and Implantium®) were used in this study. Implants were inoculated with safranin, brain heart infusion and distilled water. After inoculation and assembly of the different parts, different inner volumes (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5 and V6) were measured and, the surfaces of the micro gaps were observed through a stereomicroscope. Implants containing safranin were immersed in vials containing distilled water. Samples then were taken to determine optical density using a spectrophotometer.

Results

Regardless the used substance, volumes of the 3-implant systems are different. Although volumes V1, V2, V3 and V5 appeared to be constant within the same system regardless the used substance, volumes V4 and V6 were not.

Conclusion

The determination of the volumes and the evaluation of leaked substance using stereomicroscopic and spectrophotometric methods showed the accuracy of these methods and the importance of their use in the study of microleakage.

Clinical significance

Leakage is an important factor for chronic inflammatory infiltration and marginal bone resorption. Studies have shown fluid and bacterial leakage into abutmentimplant (A-I) assemblies of certain implants with ‘closely locked’ abutments and the creation of a constant bacterial reservoir in the empty space found between the implant and the abutment.

How to cite this article

Berberi A, Tehini G, Tabaja Z, Kobaissi A, Hamze K, Rifai K, Ezzedine M, Badran B, Chokr A. Determination of Inner Implant's Volumes: A Pilot Study for Microleakage Quantification by Stereomicroscopy and Spectrophotometry. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1122-1130.


PDF Share
  1. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132.
  2. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:71-89.
  3. Effect of implant-abutment connection design on load bearing capacity and failure mode of implants. J Prosthodont 2011;20:510-516.
  4. Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:38-42.
  5. Effects of fabrication, finishing and polishing procedures on preload in prostheses using conventional and plastic cylinders. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:589-598.
  6. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:119-130.
  7. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:102-110.
  8. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:1-19.
  9. Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2006;85:473-478.
  10. Emerging antibacterial biomaterial strategies for the prevention of peri-implant inflammatory diseases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:553-560.
  11. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-1383.
  12. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in nonsubmerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002;73:1111-1117.
  13. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:401-412.
  14. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:527-540.
  15. Bacterial leakage into and from prefabricated screw-retained implant borne crowns in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:403-408.
  16. A classification system to measure the implant abutment microgap. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:879-885.
  17. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implantabutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:427-432.
  18. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;15:39-52.
  19. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82:232-237.
  20. Peri-implantitis: from diagnosis to therapeutics. J Investig Clin Dent 2012 May;3(2):79-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-1626.2012.00116.x. Epub 2012 Mar 1.
  21. Preload loss and bacterial penetration on different implant-abutment connection systems. Braz Dent J 2010;21:123-129.
  22. Bacterial colonization of the implant-abutment interface using an in vitro dynamic loading model. J Periodontol 2011;82:613-618.
  23. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Branemark system. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:239-244.
  24. Microleakage at the abutmentimplant interface of osseointegrated implants: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:94-100.
  25. Microleakage into and from two-stage implants: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:56-62.
  26. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of an external-hex implant after saliva incubation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:782-787.
  27. Fatigue resistance of two implant.abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:604-610.
  28. Effect of lateral cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of an external hexagon implant system. J Prosth Dent 2004;91:326-334.
  29. Resistance of three implant-abutment interfaces to fatigue testing. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:413-420.
  30. Implant therapy I. In: Annals of Periodontology. World Workshop in Periodontics. Chicago: American Academy of Periodontology 1996;1:707-791.
  31. Mechanics of the tapered interference fit in dental implants. J Biomech 2003;36:1649-1658.
  32. Marginal bone loss in dental implants subjected to early loading (6 to 8 weeks postplacement) with a retrospective short-term follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:246-250.
  33. The impact of prosthetic design on the stability, marginal bone loss, peri-implant sulcus fluid volume, and nitric oxide metabolism of conventionally loaded endosseous dental implants: a 12-month clinical study. J Periodontol 2008;79:55-63.
  34. In vitro evaluation of the implant abutment bacterial seal: the locking taper system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:732-737.
  35. Marginal bone loss around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:748-754.
  36. Intraoral transmission and the colonization of oral hard surfaces. J Periodontol 1996;67:986-993.
  37. Crosssectional analysis of the implant-abutment interface. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:508-516.
  38. In vitro evaluation of the implant abutment connection sealing capability of different implant systems. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:917-924.
  39. Evaluation of microgap size and microbial leakage in connection area of four abutments with straumann (ITI) implant. J Oral Implantol 2011 Nov; 2. (Epub ahead of print).
  40. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:875-881.
  41. In vitro microbiological bacterial seal analysis of the implant/abutment connection in morse taper implants: a comparative study between 2 abutments. Implant Dentistry 2010;19:158-162.
  42. Bacterial Interactions within Dental Biofilms. J Dent Res 2009;88(11):982-990.
  43. Introduction to biofilm. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999;11:217-221.
  44. Microbial biofilms: their development and significance for medical device-related infections. J Clin Pharmacol 1999;39:887-898.
  45. Physicochemical regulation of biofilm formation. MRS Bulletin 2011;36:1-9.
  46. Micro, nano-and hierarchical structures for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning and low adhesion. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser 2009;13:47,367(1894):1631-1672.
  47. Reversal of flagellar rotation is important in initial attachment of Escherichia coli to glass in a dynamic system with high-and low-ionic-strength buffers. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002;68(3):1280-1289.
  48. Curr Microbiol 2008;56(1):93-97. Epub 2007 Nov 6.
  49. Influence of substratum wettability on attachment of freshwater bacteria to solid surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol 1983;45(3):811-817.
  50. My voyage of discovery to proteins in flatland …and beyond. Colloids Surf 2008;61:1-9.
  51. Comparison of fluorinated polymers against stainless steel, glass and polypropylene in microbial biofilm adherence and removal. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 1997;19(2):142-149.
  52. Bacteria pattern spontaneously on periodic nanostructure arrays. Nano Lett 2010;10(9):3717-3721.
  53. Influence of temperature on the co-adhesion of oral microbial pairs in saliva. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:372-377.
  54. Coaggregation among aquatic biofilm bacteria. J Appl Microbiol 1997;83:477-484.
  55. Specificity of coaggregation reactions between human oral streptococci and strains of Actinomyces viscous or Actinomyces naeslundii. Infect Immun 1979;24:742-752.
  56. Spatial arrangements and associative behavior of species in an in vitro oral biofilm model. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001;67:1343-1350.
  57. Lactose-reversible coaggregation between oral actinomycetes and Streptococcus sanguis. Infect Immun 1981;33:95-102.
  58. Intergeneric coaggregation of oral Treponema spp. with Fusobacterium spp. and intrageneric coaggregation among Fusobacterium spp. Infect Immun 1995;63:4584-4588.
  59. Effects of a high-molecular-weight cranberry fraction on growth, biofilm formation and adherence of Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58:439-443.
  60. Mutualism versus independence: strategies of mixed-species oral biofilms in vitro using saliva as the sole nutrient source. Infect Immun 2001;69:5794-5804.
  61. Influence of growth environment on coaggregation between freshwater biofilm bacteria. J Appl Microbiol 2004;96:1367-1373.
  62. Coaggregation between aquatic bacteria is mediated by specificgrowth-phase-dependent lectin-saccharide interactions. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000;66:431-434.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.