The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of the Sealing Capability of the Internal Conical Connections of Implants with Titanium and Zirconia Abutments

Ilser Turkyilmaz, Damian L Black, Chol H Chong

Citation Information : Turkyilmaz I, Black DL, Chong CH. Evaluation of the Sealing Capability of the Internal Conical Connections of Implants with Titanium and Zirconia Abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (10):915-922.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2149

Published Online: 00-10-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate the sealing capability of the conical implant–abutment interfaces under different abutment screw torque values using titanium and zirconia abutments with Morse taper designs.

Materials and methods

A total of 42 dental implants (n = 21 for titanium abutments and n = 21 for zirconia abutments) were inoculated internally with three bacteria. These assemblies were divided into four test groups (n = 10) based on screw fixation torques of 35 or 20 Ncm and placed in sterile broth; the remaining abutments were used as positive controls and torqued to 10 Ncm. Microleakage was quantified by enumerating the bacteria from the colony-forming units. An analysis of variance for the estimates of bacteria enumerated and microgaps was used with a post hoc analysis as indicated. A p-value of 0.05 was used as the level of significance.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in microleakage among the four test groups; there were no significant effects of screw torque or abutment type on the bacteria enumerated. There was a significantly smaller mean microgap with the zirconia abutments.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicated no statistically significant difference in the sealing capabilities between titanium and zirconia abutments, having internal conical connections, after increasing the abutment screw torque.

Clinical significance

It is important for clinicians to follow the guidelines suggested by the implant companies to avoid biomechanical complications over time.

How to cite this article

Black DL, Turkyilmaz I, Lien W, Chong CH. Evaluation of the Sealing Capability of the Internal Conical Connections of Implants with Titanium and Zirconia Abutments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(10):915-922.


PDF Share
  1. A 4-year prospective clinical and radiologic study of maxillary dental implants supporting single-tooth crowns using early and delayed loading protocols. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2007 Dec;9(4):222-227.
  2. 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.
  3. ; Misch-Dietsh, F. Biomaterials for dental implants. In: Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis (MO): Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 511-542.
  4. An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007 Nov;35(11):819-826.
  5. Improving darkened anterior peri-implant tissue color with zirconia custom implant abutments. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008 May;29(4):238-240, 242.
  6. Analysis of the bacterial seal at the implant-abutment interface in external-hexagonal and Morse taper-connection implants: an in vitro study using a new methodology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 Sep-Oct;27(5):1091-1095.
  7. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998 Jan;42(1):71-89.
  8. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):76-94.
  9. In vitro evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: the locking taper system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):732-737.
  10. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: changes in component fit over time. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Apr;89(4):346-351.
  11. Influence of repeated screw tightening on bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009 Dec;20(12):1394-1397.
  12. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Nov-Dec;20(6):875-881.
  13. Peri-implant diseases: consensus report of the sixth European workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2008 Sep;35(8 Suppl):282-285.
  14. Definition and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2008 Sep;35(8 Suppl):286-291.
  15. Clinical and microbiologic findings that may contribute to dental implant failure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 Spring;5(1):31-38.
  16. Clinical and microbiological determinants of ailing dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009 Mar;11(1):24-36.
  17. Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999 Jan-Feb;14(1):94-100.
  18. In vitro evaluation of the implant abutment connection sealing capability of different implant systems. J Oral Rehabil 2008 Dec;35(12):917-924.
  19. Evaluation of the sealing capability of implants to titanium and zirconia abutments against Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum under different screw torque values. J Prosthet Dent 2014 Sep;112(3):561-567.
  20. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002 Feb;13(1):1-19.
  21. Microbial etiology of periodontitis. Periodontology 2000 2004 Aug;36(1):14-26.
  22. Nutritional interactions between two suspected periodontopathogens, Treponema denticola and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Infect Immun 1992 Dec;60(12):5298-5301.
  23. Interactions between periodontal bacteria and human oral epithelial cells: Fusobacterium nucleatum adheres to and invades epithelial cells. Infect Immun 2000 Jun;68(6):3140-3146.
  24. Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2006 May;85(5):473-478.
  25. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003 Mar;82(3):232-237.
  26. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997 Nov;68(11):1117-1130.
  27. 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.
  28. Evaluation of microgap size and microbial leakage in the connection area of 4 abutments with Straumann (ITI) implant. J Oral Implantol 2012 Dec;38(6):677-685.
  29. In vitro sealing ability of two materials at five different implant-abutment surfaces. J Periodontol 2006 Nov;77(11):1828-1832.
  30. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):527-540.
  31. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A 2014 Feb;102(2):552-574.
  32. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 May-Jun;27(3):537-543.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.