The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant–abutment Interface

Antoine Berberi, Dagher Maroun, Wasfi Kanj, El Zoughbi Amine, Aramouni Philippe

Citation Information : Berberi A, Maroun D, Kanj W, Amine EZ, Philippe A. Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant–abutment Interface. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (11):907-913.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1952

Published Online: 00-11-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

Use of compatible abutments may increase micromovements between the abutments, and the inner part of the implant may increase the stress on marginal bone level. Also micromovement will change the volume of the inner space of the implant–abutment complex. The resulting pumping effect can transport even initially immobile microorganisms from the exterior to the interior and vice versa.

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the mechanical comportment of OsseoSpeed™ Tx implants connected with original and compatible abutments in vitro under simulated clinical loading conditions.

Materials and methods

A total of 15 OsseoSpeed™ TX implants (4×11 mm) were used and divided into three groups (n = 5). Three types of abutments were used in the study; group I: Five original Ti Design™ abutments, group II: Five Natea™ abutments, and group III: Implanet™ abutments. Abutments used in groups II and III were all compatible with Astra Tech Implant System™. Implants were embedded into resin. Simulating the human masticatory cycle, the axial force vector was increased up to a defined maximum (25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 N) and inclined 30° to the implant axis. A radiograph amplifier was used to convert the X-ray projection into a picture. The visual evaluation of the frames and the provided X-ray videos were evaluated for an existing microgap in width and length between the implant and the abutment.

Results

An initial width gap was observed in groups II and III in four of the five samples with an average of 6.5 and 5 μm respectively. When the axial forces reach 75 N, only groups II and III demonstrated a gap width of 5.2 ± 3.63 and 4.8 ± 3.03 μm, and a gap length of 5.2 ± 3.63 and 94 ± 125.3 μm respectively. At 200 N, group I showed a gap width of 8.4 ± 1.67 μm and a gap length of 187.6 ± 43.6 μm, while groups II and III showed a gap width of 12.4 ± 3.29 and 22.8 ± 5.76 μm, and a gap length of 387.2 ± 84.36 and 641.2 ± 122.6 μm respectively.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study and under the parameters used and from the resulting data collected, we can presume that the use of compatible components leads to significant micromovement when compared with the use of original ones.

Clinical significance

The use of compatible prosthetic components with original implants showed significant micromovements when compared with the use of abutment and implant from the same manufacturer. Clinically, the micromovements when associated with leakage leads to bone loss around the neck of the implant and later to peri-implantitis.

How to cite this article

Berberi A, Maroun D, Kanj W, Amine EZ, Philippe A. Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant–abutment Interface. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(11):907-913.


PDF Share
  1. Benefits of rehabilitation with implants in masticatory function: is patient perception of change in accordance with the real improvement? J Oral Implantol 2014 Jun;40(3):263-269.
  2. The effect of implant placement in patients with either Kennedy class II and III on oral health-related quality of life: a prospective clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil 2016 Apr;43(4):291-296.
  3. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):110-124.
  4. Implantsupported single-tooth restorations. A 12-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 Oct;27(10):1207-1211.
  5. A 5-year comparison of marginal bone level following immediate loading of single-tooth implants placed in healed alveolar ridges and extraction sockets in the maxilla. Front Physiol 2014;5:29.
  6. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014 Feb;41(2):191-213.
  7. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2008.
  8. In vivo vertical forces on implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 Jan-Feb;10(1):99-108.
  9. Studies on human bite force. A novel bite force recorder and its clinical applications. Prosthetic Dentistry. Helsinki: Med.-Habilitation; 1995.
  10. Critical bending moment of four implant-abutment interface designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010 Jul-Aug;25(4):744-751.
  11. The effect of eliminating implant/ abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996 Nov-Dec;9(6):511-519.
  12. Stability of the implant/abutment joint in a single-tooth external hexagon implant system: clinical and mechanical review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6(4):222-229.
  13. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection-in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig 2010 Aug;14(4):427-432.
  14. Assessment of lipopolysaccharide microleakage at conical implant-abutment connections. Clin Oral Investig 2012 Oct;16(5):1377-1384.
  15. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003 Mar;82(3):232-237.
  16. 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 Oct;72(10):1372-1383.
  17. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002 Oct;73(10):1111-1117.
  18. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996 Feb;15(1):39-52.
  19. On crestal/marginal bone loss around dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013 Jan-Feb;33(1):9-11.
  20. Bacterial leakage into and from prefabricated screw-retained implantborne crowns in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1998 Jun;25(6):403-408.
  21. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002 Feb;13(1):1-19.
  22. Micromovements at the implant-abutment interface: measurement, causes and consequences. Implantologie 2007;15(1):31-46.
  23. Tissue reactions, fluids, and bacterial infiltration in implants retrieved at autopsy: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Mar-Apr;15(2):283-286.
  24. Bacterial colonisation of interior implant threads with and without sealing. Folia Morphol 2006 Feb;65(1):75-77.
  25. Tissue-directed placement of dental implants in the esthetic zone for long-term biologic synergy: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Nov-Dec;20(6):913-922.
  26. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416.
  27. Vertical fracture and marginal bone loss of internal-connection implants: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 Jul-Aug;28(4):e171-176.
  28. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 May-Jun;10(3):326-334.
  29. Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Sep-Oct;15(5):662-667.
  30. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29(Suppl 3):197-212.
  31. Implants with original and non-original abutment connections. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014 Apr;16(2):303-311.
  32. Failure mode of implant-abutment connections after horizontal cyclic loading. J Dent Oral Med 2004;6(3):238.
  33. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992 Fall;7(3):353-359.
  34. Assessment of cold welding of the internal conical interface of two commercially available implant systems. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Feb;81(2):159-166.
  35. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(Suppl 1):156-158.
  36. Saliva and dental implants. Implant Dent 2006 Dec;15(4):372-374.
  37. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998 Jan;42(1):71-89.
  38. Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Jan;85(1):47-52.
  39. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Dec;88(6):604-610.
  40. Influence of connection geometry on dynamic micromotion at the implant-abutment interface. Int J Prosthodont 2007 Nov-Dec;20(6):623-625.
  41. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995 Sep;74(3):270-278.
  42. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II) Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 1998 Jun;106(3):721-764.
  43. The fit of cast and premachined implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:184-192.
  44. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):76-94.
  45. Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implantsupported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2002 Jan-Feb;15(1):38-42.
  46. Effects of fabrication, finishing, and polishing procedures on preload in prostheses using conventional “gold” and plastic cylinders. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996 Sep-Oct;11(5):589-598.
  47. Success and complications of implant-retained prostheses provided by the Post-Doctoral Prosthodontics Program, University of Puerto Rico: a cross-sectional study. J Prosthet Dent 2015 Nov;114(5):637-643. Epub 2015 Jul 31.
  48. Implants with original and compatible abutment connections: in vitro leakage evaluation using Rhodamine B. J Dent Biomech 2014 Aug;5:1758736014547143.
  49. Loose gold screws frequently occur in full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994 Mar-Apr;9(2):169-178.
  50. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007 Jun;18 (Suppl 3): 97-113.
  51. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 Feb;19(2):119-130.
  52. Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 May-Jun;10(3):295-302.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.