The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of Microgap and Microbial Leakage of Two Different Implant-abutment Interfaces: An In Vitro Study

Ranjan Rashmi Behera, Kanika Kaur, Shilpa Duseja, Murali Patla Shivarama Bhat, Ravi Kumar, Nimish H Oberoi, Hind Ali Osman

Keywords : Abutments, Dental implants, Microbial leakage, Microgap

Citation Information : Behera RR, Kaur K, Duseja S, Bhat MP, Kumar R, Oberoi NH, Osman HA. Assessment of Microgap and Microbial Leakage of Two Different Implant-abutment Interfaces: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (8):566-569.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3509

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate Titanium and Bioneck TRI implant-abutment interfaces for microgaps and microbiological leakage. Materials and methods: In this in vitro experiment, 40 dental implants were split into two groups, each of which had 20 samples. Group I: Titanium dental implant, group II: Bioneck TRI. E. coli strain was cultivated in MacConkey media for 24 hours at 37°C. To achieve a bacterial concentration of 1 x 108 colony-forming units per mL at 0.5 scale of MacFarland, the brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth was injected. The CFU count was done to evaluate the microbial leakage. The parts were first submerged, carefully cleaned in an ultrasonic bath, and then installed using a digital torque meter with a 20 N/cm preload. These were attached to a stub of approximately 13 mm using carbon tape, and the microgap evaluation was performed using a scanning electron microscope at a magnification of x1000. Unpaired t-test was used for the calculated data's statistical analysis. The p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The maximum microbial leakage was in Bioneck TRI implants (10000 ± 0.01) followed by Titanium dental implants (8.60 ± 3.16). The mean difference was 9991.40 and there was a statistically significant difference found between the two different groups. The maximum microgap was found in the Bioneck TRI implants (9.72 ± 0.96), followed by Titanium dental implant (6.82 ± 1.10) and there was a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The present study concluded that the microorganisms can infiltrate the microgap between the implant and abutment interface. When compared with Titanium dental implants, Bioneck TRI implants showed significantly higher levels of microbial leakage. Clinical significance: A microgap between the implant and abutment connection might operate as a bacterial source, may produce inflammation, even osseointegration in danger, and subsequently alter clinical and histological parameters. Therefore, having an understanding of the compatible components aids in overcoming treatment planning challenges.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Piermatti J, Yousef H, Luke A, et al. An in vitro analysis of implant screw torque loss with external hex and internal connection implant systems. Implant Dent 2006;15:427–435. 15(4):427-35. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000245440.09464.48.
  2. Verdugo CL, Núñez GJ, Avila AA, et al. Microleakage of the prosthetic abutment/implant interface with internal and external connection: In vitro study. Clin Oral Implants 2014;25(9):1078–1083. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12217.
  3. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Acil Y, et al. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection- in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clinical Oral investig 2010;14(4):427–432. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0317-x.
  4. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, et al. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Brånemark system. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5(4):239–244. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050407.x.
  5. Liu Y, Wang J. Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant –abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck. Arch Oral Biol 2017;83:153–160. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.07.022.
  6. Baixe S, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Yet al. Microgap between zirconia abutments and titanium implants.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:455–460. PMID: 20556243.
  7. de Oliveira GR, Olate S, Pozzer L, et al. Bacterial contamination along implant-abutment interface in external and internal-hex dental implants. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:580–585. PMID: 24753751.
  8. Faria R, May LG, de Vasconcellos DK, et al. Evaluation of the bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Implants 2011;1(2):51–57. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.91280.
  9. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82(3):232–237. DOI: 10.1177/154405910308200316.
  10. Gigandet M, Bigolin G, Faoro F, et al. Implants with original and non-original abutment connections. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 2012;01–10.
  11. Rismanchian M, Hatami M, Badrian H, et al. Evaluation of microgap size and microbial leakage in the connection area of 4 abutments with Straumann (ITI) implant. Journal of Oral Implantology 2012;38(6):677–685. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00167.
  12. Fernández M, Delgado L, Molmeneu M, et al. Analysis of the misfit of dental implant-supported prostheses made with three manufacturing processes. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(2):116–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.006.
  13. Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y, Matsumura H. Marginal fit and microgaps of implant-abutment Interface with Internal Anti-rotation Configuration. Dental Mater J 2008;27(1):29–34. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.29.
  14. Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Iezzi G, Leghissa GC, A Q. A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments. J Oral Implantol 2005;31(6):269–275. DOI: 10.1563/753.1.
  15. Wahl G, Muller F, Schaal KP. The microbial colonization of implant elements made of plastics and titanium. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1992;102911): 1321–1326. PMID: 1470888.
  16. Scarano A, Valbonetti L, Degidi M, et al. Implant-abutment contact surfaces and microgap measurements of different implant connections under 3-dimensional X-ray microtomography. Implant Dent 2016;25(5):656–662. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000465.
  17. Do Nascimento C, Barbosa RE, Issa JP, et al. Bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of premachined or cast components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:177-80. 37(2):177–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007.07.026.
  18. Grobecker-Karl T, Karl M. Correlation Between Micromotion and Gap Formation at the Implant-Abutment Interface. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30(2):150–152. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5086..
  19. Mawhinney J, Connolly E, Claffey N, et al. An in vivo comparison of internal bacterial colonization in two dental implant systems: identification of a pathogenic reservoir. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015; 73(3):188–194. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2014.978365..
  20. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Bössmann K, et al. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(6):875–881. PMID: 16392344.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.