The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Microleakage and Microgap of Two Different Internal Implant–Abutment Connections: An In Vitro Study

Anuj Singh Parihar, Kyatsandra N Jagadeesh, Anuj Singh Parihar, Sami Alduwayhi, Sridhar Annapoorneshwari, Faiz Muslimveetil Khalid, Prashant Babaji

Citation Information : Parihar AS, Jagadeesh KN, Parihar AS, Alduwayhi S, Annapoorneshwari S, Khalid FM, Babaji P. Evaluation of Microleakage and Microgap of Two Different Internal Implant–Abutment Connections: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (6):683-685.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2817

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-10-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The higher success rate (>90%) of dental implants over 5 years has made this treatment option favorable for dental surgeons as well as for patients. The present in vitro study was conducted to assess microleakage and microgap of two dissimilar internal implant–abutment associations. Materials and methods: Forty dental implants were divided into two groups: trilobe internal connection fixtures in group I and internal hexagonal geometry fixtures in group II. For the immersion of implant abutment assemblies, sterilized tubes containing 4 mL of Staphylococcus aureus broth culture were incubated at 37°C for 2 weeks. Gram's stain and biochemical reactions were used for identification of colonies. Results: The mean log10 colony-forming unit (CFU) in group I was 8.6 and was 9.3 in group II. The disparity among two groups was found to be significant (p < 0.05). The mean microgap in group I was 7.2 μm and was 10.4 μm in group II. The disparity among the two groups was found to be significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Authors found that microscopic space between implant and abutment may be the site of penetration of bacteria. There was significant higher log10 CFU in dental implant fixtures with an internal hexagonal geometry compared to the dental implant fixtures with a trilobe internal connection. Clinical significance: Microscopic space between implant and abutment may be the site of penetration of bacteria. This information will help to avoid microleakage to improve implant success rate.

  1. Covani U, Marconcini S, Crespi R, et al. Bacterial plaque colonization around dental implant surfaces. Implant Dent 2006;15(3):298–304. DOI: 10.1097/
  2. 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(2):177–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007.07.026.
  3. Ribeiro CG, Maia ML, Scherrer SS, et al. Resistance of three implant-abutment interfaces to fatigue testing. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(4): 413–420. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572011005000018.
  4. O'Mahony A, MacNeill SR, Cobb CM. Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: a retrospective analysis of failed implants. Quintessence Int 2000;31(4):249–256.
  5. da Silva-Neto JP, Nobilo MA, Penatti MP, et al. Influence of methodologic aspects on the results of implant-abutment interface microleakage tests: a critical review of in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(4):793–800.
  6. do Nascimento C, Miani PK, Pedrazzi V, et al. Leakage of saliva through the implant-abutment interface: in vitro evaluation of three different implant connections under unloaded and loaded conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(3):551–560.
  7. Cosyn J, Van Aelst L, Collaert B, et al. The peri-implant sulcus compared with internal implant and suprastructure components: a microbiological analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13(4): 286–295. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x.
  8. Gherlone EF, Capparé P, Pasciuta R, et al. Evaluation of resistance against bacterial microleakage of a new conical implant-abutment connection versus conventional connections: an in vitro study. New Microbiol 2016;39(1):49–56.
  9. Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y, Matsumura H. Marginal fit and micro gaps of implant-abutment interface with internal antirotation configuration. Dent Mater J 2008;27(1):29–34. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.29.
  10. 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.
  11. Saidin S, Abdul Kadir MR, Sulaiman E, et al. Effects of different implant-abutment connections on micromotion and stress distribution: prediction of microgap formation. J Dent 2012;40(6):467–474. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.009.
  12. Faria R, May LG, de Vasconcellos DK, et al. Evaluation of the bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Implant 2011;1(2):51–57. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.91280.
  13. Nassar HI, Abdalla MF. Bacterial leakage of different internal implant/abutment connection. Fut Dent J 2015;1(1):1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2015.09.001.
  14. Tesmer M, Wallet S, Koutouzis T, et al. Bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2009;80(12):1991–1997. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009. 090178.
  15. Koutouzis T, Mesia R, Calderon N, et al. The effect of dynamic loading on bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture–abutment interface: an in vitro study. J Oral Implant. 2014;40(4):432–437. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00207.
  16. Wachtel A, Zimmermann T, Spintig T, et al. A novel approach to prove bacterial leakage of implant-abutment connections in vitro. J Oral Implant. 2016;42(6):452–457. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00065.
  17. 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. J Oral Implant 2012;38(6):677–685. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00167.
  18. Teixeira W, Ribeiro RF, Sato S, et al. Microleakage into and from two-stage implants: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2011;26(1):56–62.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.