The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Sealing capability and marginal fit of titanium versus zirconia abutments with different connection designs

  • Sen, Nazmiye (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Istanbul) ;
  • Sermet, Ibrahim Bulent (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Istanbul) ;
  • Gurler, Nezahat (Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Istanbul)
  • Received : 2018.11.05
  • Accepted : 2019.03.14
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Limited data is available regarding the differences for possible microleakage problems and fitting accuracy of zirconia versus titanium abutments with various connection designs. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of connection design and abutment material on the sealing capability and fitting accuracy of abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 42 abutments with different connection designs [internal conical (IC), internal tri-channel (IT), and external hexagonal (EH)] and abutment materials [titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr)] were evaluated. The inner parts of implants were inoculated with $0.7{\mu}L$ of polymicrobial culture (P. gingivalis, T. forsythia, T. denticola and F. nucleatum) and connected with their respective abutments under sterile conditions. The penetration of bacteria into the surrounding media was assessed by the visual evaluation of turbidity at each time point and the number of colony forming units (CFUs) was counted. The marginal gap at the implant- abutment interface (IAI) was measured by scanning electron microscope. The data sets were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests with the Bonferroni-Holm correction (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. Statistically significant difference was found among the groups based on the results of leaked colonies (P<.05). The EH-Ti group characterized by an external hexagonal connection were less resistant to bacterial leakage than the groups EH-Zr, IT-Zr, IT-Ti, IC-Zr, and IC-Ti (P<.05). The marginal misfit (in ${\mu}m$) of the groups were in the range of 2.7-4.0 (IC-Zr), 1.8-5.3 (IC-Ti), 6.5-17.1 (IT-Zr), 5.4-12.0 (IT-Ti), 16.8-22.7 (EH-Zr), and 10.3-15.4 (EH-Ti). CONCLUSION. The sealing capability and marginal fit of abutments were affected by the type of abutment material and connection design.

Keywords

References

  1. Gracis S, Michalakis K, Vigolo P, Vult von Steyern P, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:202-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02556.x
  2. Shim HW, Yang BE. Long-term cumulative survival and mechanical complications of single-tooth Ankylos Implants: focus on the abutment neck fractures. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:423-30. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.423
  3. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:76-94.
  4. Koutouzis T, Neiva R, Nonhoff J, Lundgren T. Placement of implants with platform-switched Morse taper connections with the implant-abutment interface at different levels in relation to the alveolar crest: a short-term (1-year) randomized prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1553-63. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3184
  5. Siadat H, Beyabanaki E, Mousavi N, Alikhasi M. Comparison of fit accuracy and torque maintenance of zirconia and titanium abutments for internal tri-channel and external-hex implant connections. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:271-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.271
  6. Moon SJ, Kim HJ, Son MK, Chung CH. Sinking and fit of abutment of locking taper implant system. J Adv Prosthodont 2009;1:97-101. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2009.1.2.97
  7. Lee JH, Kim DG, Park CJ, Cho LR. Axial displacements in external and internal implant-abutment connection. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:e83-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12062
  8. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  9. Nakamura K, Kanno T, Milleding P, Ortengren U. Zirconia as a dental implant abutment material: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:299-309.
  10. Teixeira W, Ribeiro RF, Sato S, Pedrazzi V. Microleakage into and from two-stage implants: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:56-62.
  11. Mishra SK, Chowdhary R, Kumari S. Microleakage at the different implant abutment interface: A systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:ZE10-ZE15.
  12. Al-Jadaa A, Attin T, Peltomaki T, Schmidlin PR. Comparison of three in vitro implant leakage testing methods. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12679
  13. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Acil Y, Terheyden H, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection--in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:427-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0317-x
  14. Nascimento C, Ikeda LN, Pita MS, Pedroso e Silva RC, Pedrazzi V, Albuquerque RF, Ribeiro RF. Marginal fit and microbial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of fixed partial prostheses: An in vitro analysis using Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:831-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.009
  15. Abdelhamed MI, Galley JD, Bailey MT, Johnston WM, Holloway J, McGlumphy E, Leblebicioglu B. A Comparison of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments for Microleakage. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e643-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12301
  16. Nascimento CD, Pita MS, Fernandes FHNC, Pedrazzi V, de Albuquerque Junior RF, Ribeiro RF. Bacterial adhesion on the titanium and zirconia abutment surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:337-43.
  17. Nascimento CD, Pita MS, Fernandes FHNC, Pedrazzi V, de Albuquerque Junior RF, Ribeiro RF. Bacterial adhesion on the titanium and zirconia abutment surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:337-43.
  18. Smith NA, Turkyilmaz I. 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;112:561-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.11.010
  19. 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;18:915-22. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2149
  20. Baixe S, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Etienne O. Microgap between zirconia abutments and titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:455-60.
  21. Hamilton A, Judge RB, Palamara JE, Evans C. Evaluation of the fit of CAD/CAM abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:370-80. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3501

Cited by

  1. A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows vol.9, pp.14, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142778
  2. Implant Volume Loss, Misfit, Screw Loosening, and Stress In Custom Titanium and Zirconia Abutments vol.31, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202003643
  3. Application of multi-directional forged titanium for prosthetic crown fabrication by CAD/CAM vol.40, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2020-351