Next Article in Journal
Modelling Selective CO2 Absorption and Validation via Photosynthetic Bacteria and Chemical Adsorbents for Methane Purification in Anaerobic Fermentation Bioreactors
Previous Article in Journal
Hybrid Perovskite-Based Materials Modified with Polyhedral Silsesquioxanes—Structure and Properties
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 19
10.3390/ma16196532
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant–Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study

by
Rocío Cascos
1,2,3,*,
Alicia Celemín-Viñuela
1,
Nataly Mory-Rubiños
1,
Cristina Gómez-Polo
4,
Rocío Ortega
3,
Rubén Agustín-Panadero
5 and
Miguel Gómez-Polo
1
1
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Nursing and Estomatology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, European University of Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
4
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
5
Prosthodontic and Occlusion Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(19), 6532; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196532
Submission received: 31 August 2023 / Revised: 22 September 2023 / Accepted: 28 September 2023 / Published: 1 October 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This in vitro study aimed to assess the presence of microgaps at the implant–abutment interface in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments. Methods: Sixty conical connection dental implants were divided into two groups (n = 30). The control group consisted of three-unit bridge monolithic zirconia connected to two implants by a transepithelial abutment. The test group consisted of monolithic zirconia three-unit restoration connected to two implants directly by a titanium base (Ti-base) abutment. The sample was subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles at 5 °C to 55 °C, dwelling time 50 s) and chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N at frequencies of 2 Hz, at a 30° angle). The microgap was evaluated at six points (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) of each implant–abutment interface by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U tests (p > 0.05). Results: The SEM analysis showed a smaller microgap at the implant–abutment interface in the control group (0.270 μm) than in the test group (3.902 μm). Statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The use or not of transepithelial abutments affects the microgap size. The transepithelial abutments group presented lower microgap values at the interface with the implant than the Ti-base group in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, both groups had microgap values within the clinically acceptable range.

1. Introduction

Currently, dental implantology is a highly predictable treatment, with high success rates, being the first choice of treatment in many cases [1,2]. There are multiple restorative options for implants. Depending on the type of retention, it can be screw-retained or cemented [3,4]. It can be restored directly to the implant or using transepithelial abutments, which can be of different heights [5], macrogeometries [6,7,8], and materials [9,10]; they also can be original or compatible abutments [11]. Abutment height has been reported to influence peri-implant marginal bone loss, with several articles showing a reduction in bone loss with increased abutment height [5,12]. On the other hand, it has been shown that the macroscopic design, surface topography, and manipulation of the implant abutment do not influence peri-implant bleeding on probing (BOP). On the contrary, differences in BOP have been reported with several materials, with higher BOP values in titanium compared to zirconia abutments [8].
Concerning the materials, nowadays, zirconia is one of the most frequently used. It can be manufactured via CAD-CAM technology (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing) and is usually cemented to a Ti-base [13,14].
Two-piece implants have a critical area: the interface or junction between the implant and the abutment. A microgap may appear in this area, which is the distance between the contact surface between the dental implant and the abutment or prosthetic component [13,14,15]. This microgap can be a source of micromovements [16,17] and bacterial contamination [16,17,18,19], where bacteria flow freely between the oral environment and the internal cavity of the implant. This passage of bacteria in addition to toxic bacterial by-products can produce a persistent inflammatory process of the peri-implant tissues, causing peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and, finally, resorption in the bone crest. In implants with peri-implantitis, the most common bacterial species are Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia [20]. Factors such as the type of connection, the use of abutment, as well as the torque influence the stability of the implant–abutment connection, which may favor bacterial contamination and the clinical consequences that this entails [21,22,23]. Therefore, a stable connection between the implant and the abutment is going to be sought to reduce these micromotions and the possible consequences of these [16,17]. This connection seems to be the internal conical connection, with multiple authors reporting greater stability of the conical connection compared to the rest [22,24,25].
As a consequence of the misfit between the implant and the abutment, mechanical complications can also occur, such as stress on the prosthetic screw, causing loosening and fracture of the screw; implant overloading; and abutment rotation or fracture [26].
The connection of the prosthetic restorations through a transmucosal component, the abutment, enables the transmission of functional masticatory forces. In addition, through the biological seal, where the soft tissues adhere to the abutment surface, the implants are protected from the contaminated oral environment. Consequently, the peri-implant hard tissues are protected from bone resorption [27].
Nowadays, the first treatment option for partial or total edentulism is dental implants and fixed dental prostheses, except contraindications. Whether or not to use a transepithelial abutment is one of the issues to be considered when rehabilitating implants; however, few studies compare both treatment options. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microgap at the implant–abutment interface (IAI), analyzed using a scanning electron microscope in three-unit monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses on transepithelial versus Ti-base abutments. The null hypothesis was that there were no statistically significant differences in the microgap between monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses connected to transepithelial abutments and connected to Ti-base abutments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Implant–Abutment System Characteristics

A total of 60 commercially titanium dental implants with a conical connection and 3.5 mm diameter and 11.5 mm length (Avinent Ocean, Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain) were divided into two groups (n = 30) according to the type of abutment-making three-unit bridges made of monolithic zirconia milled from blocks (DDcubeOne® Multilayer, Dental Direkt GmbH, Herford Germany) and designed using CAD-CAM (Exocad Rijeka 3.1, Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany).
In the control group, 2 mm high transepithelial abutments (Reference 3119; Avinent Ocean, Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain) were screwed to the implants. Three-unit monolithic zirconia bridges cemented to rotatory Ti-bases (Reference 2822; Avinent Ocean, Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain) were screwed. In the test group, there were no transepithelial abutments. The 3-unit monolithic zirconia bridges were cemented to rotary Ti bases (Reference 3050; Avinent Ocean, Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain) and screwed directly to the implants. The prosthetic components of both groups are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Specimen Preparation

Thirty standardized machined polymethylmethacrylate resin blocks (45 mm long, 15 mm wide, and 18 mm high) with an elastic modulus of 3000 MPa (approximate cancellous bone modulus of 1507 MPa) were fabricated with two perforations (12 mm long and 5.5 mm wide) to store the implants.
First, two implants were embedded in each methacrylate block with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Probase Cold, Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The implants were placed at the “supracrestal” level of the methacrylate block to allow the microgap to be observed and measured. In the control group, the two transepithelial abutments were screwed to the implants, and the scan bodies (Reference 2800; Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain) were placed on them. The position of the implants was digitized using a laboratory scanner (Medit T500, Medit Corp., Yeongdeungpo-gu, South Korea). The obtained STL file was employed to design the three-piece monolithic zirconia bridges (anatomy of 1st premolar, 2nd premolar (pontic), and 1st molar) by using CAD program software (Exocad Rijeka 3.1, Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). Once a dental technician completed and validated the design, it was sent to the milling center (Avinent CAD CAM, Barcelona, Spain) to obtain 60 zirconia bridges (30 per group). This procedure was repeated in the test group, in which no transepithelial abutments were employed. In this group, the scan bodies (Reference 3080; Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain) were directly screwed to the implants to digitize the implant positions.
The 3-unit restorations were milled from 14 mm thick zirconia discs (4Y-TZP) (DDcubeOne® Multilayer, Dental Direkt GmbH, Herford, Germany) using a 5-axis precision milling machine (Roland DWX-52DC; Roland DG Deutschland GmbH, Viersen, Germany). According to the properties reported by the company, this material has 1200 ± 150 MPa strength and excellent esthetic properties. Subsequently, to complete the fabrication process, the bridges were placed in a sintering furnace (Ivoclar Vivadent Programat S1, Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Then, the bridges of both groups were cemented at the different Ti bases using a permanent self-curing composite cement (Multilink hybrid abutment, Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein).
With the bridges screwed on the model specimens of each group placed inside a box, a transparent silicone print (Exaclear, GC Ibérica Dental Products, S.L.) was taken to position all the bridge–implant complexes in the same position on each polymethacrylate block. Each bridge–implant complex was placed with the bridge part in the silicone impression, and acrylic resin was poured into the methacrylate blocks until the implants were completely covered. After the polymerization of the acrylic resin, the silicone print was removed, leaving the complex bridge–implants joined in the methacrylate blocks.
The transepithelial abutments and the direct-to-implant Ti-base abutment screws were torqued at 35 Ncm according to the manufacturer’s instructions. An original brand-new wrench was used (Avinent Implant System, Barcelona, Spain). In the control group, the screw connecting the bridge with the transepithelial abutment was tightened at a torque of 20 Ncm according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Subsequently, screw cavities were filled with a 0.2 mm thick polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape (PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene; MIARCO) [28] and definitive restorative material (Tetric Evoceram, Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein).

2.3. Aging Processes

To simulate artificial deterioration, all specimens were subjected to a thermocycling process of 10,000 cycles in distilled water at a minimum temperature of 5 °C and a maximum temperature of 55 °C. The total time for each cycle was 50 s:20 s in the container of cold water (5 °C), 10 s of transition, and 20 s in the container with hot water (55 °C) (VA55, EuroOrtodoncia, Madrid, Spain) [29].
After thermocycling, each specimen was subjected to cyclic loading in a chewing simulation machine (Instron®, Euroortodoncia S.A. Zwick/Roell testXpert ll Software) (Figure 2a). Each specimen was placed in a metal box with a 30° inclination, where it was firmly secured to avoid displacements during the process (Figure 2b). The load was applied using a deformation-resistant metal element with a hemispherical counting surface to transfer the load on the occlusal surface of the pontic of the 3-unit monolithic zirconia bridge for 300,000 cycles under loads of 200 N at 2 Hz [30].
Followed by thermocycling and chewing simulation, all specimens were inspected under an optical microscope (Telecentric Objective 1:1, Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany) at 4 magnification Toupview V.x643.7.6701 (Toupview, Toup Tek, ToupTek Photonics Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China) to verify that there were no alterations or fractures in the structures. In addition, a tactile motion test was performed with dental pliers.
Before the assessment with the SEM, all the samples were cleaned with steam at a working temperature of 135 °C, with a maximum pressure of 4 bars (VK300, Ivoclar Vivadent®, Schaan, Liechtenstein).

2.4. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Test

An implant–abutment interface microgap is defined as the microscopic space between an implant and abutment [13,17]; that is, the lack of contact measured from the implant platform to the corresponding contact area of the abutment (Figure 1).
The IAI microgap of all specimens was evaluated by using an SEM (JSM-6400, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). All samples were coated with 24 Kt, 19.32 g/m3 density gold using the Q15RS metallizer (Quorum Technologies, Sussex, UK). Subsequently, they were placed perpendicular to the SEM optical axis (90° ± 25°), and the distance measurement was performed parallel to the axis of the implant–abutment interface. Then, the IAI microgap was evaluated in 6 areas (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual). These points were previously marked with a permanent marker. Images were obtained from each point at 10, 500, and 1000 magnifications for further evaluation (Figure 3).
Microscopic observation and imaging were performed by a microscopy specialist independent of the study (AM.V.M.) (Spanish National Centre for Electron Microscopy ICTS; Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain). A previously trained operator (R.C.) performed 10 measurements in each of the images, corresponding to the 6 evaluated areas of each IAI, using a computer program (ImageJ64, National Institutes of Health, version J64, Bethesda, MA, USA), thus obtaining 60 images for each IAI (Figure 4). Previous to the measurements, the scale was calibrated. The microgap values obtained were in microns (μm).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using a statistical software program (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, v.26.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). For the descriptive analysis, the mean, median, and standard deviation values per group were analyzed. The normality of the data distribution was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test (p < 0.05). The data were not normally distributed. Therefore, the microgap was analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test between the transepithelial abutment and Ti-base abutment groups. The confidence level was 95%, so p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

No complications occurred in the specimens after thermocycling, chewing simulation, and SEM microgap evaluation, so data from all samples were included for statistical analysis. Six measurements per implant were performed, obtaining 180 per group, with a total of 360 data points. Descriptive statistics were presented for each of the evaluated areas (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) and per implant (mean of all points) (Figure 5 and Figure 6; Table 1).
The Mann–Whitney U test showed significant differences between the transepithelial abutment and Ti-base groups (p < 0.05) in each area and the total number of them per implant. (Table 2).

4. Discussion

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the presence of microgaps analyzed using a scanning electron microscope in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments. Significant differences in the microgaps of both groups were found, with the transepithelial abutment group presenting a smaller microgap, so the null hypothesis was rejected.
The misfit between the implant and the abutment or prosthetic component will be critical in clinical situations due to the possible mechanical and biological complications that it may promote [21,22,23,26,27], so its evaluation must be based on reliable, accurate, and reproducible methods. Several methods have been proposed to assess microgaps. Among the different techniques are the use of optical and scanning electron microscopes, as well as radiographic evaluation in two and three dimensions [13,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. However, there is currently no consensus on the superiority of the different assessment methods [40]. The present study was based on the evaluation of microgaps via SEM analysis. Its use has been widely documented as a noninvasive, reproducible, and reliable method [32] for assessing microgaps or misfits of prosthetic components. However, SEM analysis has limitations since only two-dimensional images can be obtained. Other imaging techniques, such as digital tomography or microtomography, have been proposed to overcome these limitations. Nevertheless, they are more expensive and require specific equipment and more time for processing and evaluating the images obtained [35,36,37,38,39].
The microgap between implant and abutment in conical connection implants should be evaluated in the axis or plane of the contact surface between the implant and abutment. In this regard, the appropriate angle in assessing the microgap should be 90° with respect to the vertical axis of the implant. Due to the proposed prosthetic configuration, the SEM had to be angled at 90° with an angulation variation of ±25° toward the coronal axis to obtain an adequate axis for microgap evaluation. Therefore, the results obtained should be carefully evaluated considering this angulation setting to allow the observation of the microgap [13].
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the designs and different components and materials of implants and prosthetic components, accompanied by the evolution of CAD-CAM technology. However, two-piece implants still inevitably present a microgap at the interface between the implant and the abutment or prosthetic component [41,42]. This microgap may favor the appearance of possible biological and mechanical complications [12,21,22,23,27]. Therefore, microgap size factors should be considered to achieve an optimal fit between implants and abutments.
Although numerous studies evaluate the existing microgap at the implant–abutment interface and show which microgap values are acceptable, there is no consensus in the scientific literature on the clinically accepted microgap value [43]. Thus, the clinically accepted misfit range is from 10 μm to 150 μm [13,21,32,43,44]. Both groups were considered clinically acceptable in the present study as they presented microgap values below this range. The mean sizes of the control and the test groups were less than 10 μm, 0.27 μm, and 3.90 μm, respectively. The largest microgap size was found in the test group (49.50 μm), and the minimum value was found in both groups (0.11 μm). Consistent with these results, similar results are found for tapered connection implants in abutments fabricated in zirconia (2.57 μm) [13] (2.7–4 μm) [45], milled titanium (0 μm) [31] (1.8–5.3 μm) [45], and in milled cobalt chrome (2.26 μm) [13]. However, the microgap size increases in laser sintering techniques for Co-Cr abutments (13.60 μm), as well as for cast structures (18.40 μm) [13]. In an in vitro study evaluating the fit of three-unit implant-supported, screw-retained frameworks on three implants, it was shown that the CAD/ CAM-fabricated zirconia and CAD/CAM-fabricated cobalt–chromium frameworks were associated with lower misfit values. The misfit values were 5.9 ± 3.6 mm for CAD/ CAM-fabricated zirconia, 1.2 ± 2.2 mm for CAD/CAM-fabricated cobalt–chromium frameworks, 11.8 ± 9.8 mm for conventionally fabricated cobalt–chromium frameworks with pre-machined abutments, and 12.9 ± 11.0 mm for the conventionally manufactured frameworks with castable abutments [45]. Therefore, the manufacturing method affects the accuracy of single crowns and three-unit FDP frameworks. However, the available scientific research is limited regarding the use of transepithelial abutments vs. Ti-base or direct-to-implant frameworks for multiple restorations.
The aging phase is intended to simulate, at a preclinical level, the intraoral conditions to which the restorations would be subjected clinically. The present study used artificial mastication via cyclic loading and thermocycling tests. Thermocycling is based on subjecting different prosthetic components or materials to temperature changes for a certain number of cycles. Similarly, using artificial saliva and distilled water has been described as an immersion medium. In the present study, distilled water was used at a standard temperature of 5 and 55 °C for 50 s each cycle, subjecting the specimens to 10,000 cycles. Considering the ISO standard for this methodology, using both a dry test and physiological saline for the artificial aging of implant restorations is accepted [30]. In the present study, dry static loading was used due to the characteristics of the chewing simulation machine used. The determination of the loading cycles was based on previous studies which reported that a loading process of between 240,000 and 250,000 cycles in a chewing simulation machine corresponds to approximately one year of clinical chewing function in the oral cavity [46], with 300,000 cycles under 200 N loads applied for each specimen. Compared with the previous literature, the parameters used were within current standards in similar studies, ranging from a minimum of 1000 to 1,200,000 cycles for crowns and 10,000 to 2,000,000 cycles for three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The applied force varied between 20 and 300 N for crowns and 49 and 200 N for three-unit FDPs [47].
Some limitations of this study should be considered. First, the oral environment, dynamic occlusion, and biological parameters could not be simulated. Therefore, the data obtained cannot always be extrapolated clinically. The microgap was evaluated with an SEM, as in previous studies. Another limitation that could be contemplated is that the present study only assessed the conical connection and two types of abutments, with there being multiple designs of connections, abutments, and restorations depending on the material and type of fabrication. In addition, the microgaps before aging were not recorded, so it is impossible to distinguish if the observed differences were due to the initial device or the aging procedure.
Therefore, future clinical investigations are needed, including different types of connections, different abutment designs, materials, and manufacturing techniques.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that the use of transmucosal abutments can provide lower implant–abutment-interface microgaps when compared to direct titanium-base abutments for monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. Both groups presented microgap values within the clinically acceptable range.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G.-P. and R.C.; methodology, M.G.-P. and R.C.; software, R.C. and N.M.-R.; validation, M.G.-P., R.A.-P. and A.C.-V.; formal analysis M.G.-P., R.C., R.O. and C.G.-P.; investigation, R.C.; resources, M.G.-P. and R.C.; data curation, R.C., N.M.-R. and C.G.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.; writing—review and editing, M.G.-P., R.O. and R.C.; visualization, A.C.-V. and R.A.-P.; supervision, M.G.-P.; project administration, M.G.-P.; funding acquisition, M.G.-P. and R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Research Grant of the Spanish Society of Stomatological and Aesthetic Prosthetics.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ana Vicente (ICTS National Electron Mi- croscopy Centre), Ruben Ayuso (Mechanical Workshop, Faculty of Physics, Complutense University of Madrid), Pedro Molinero-Mourelle and Lorenzo del Río, (Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain), for their assistance in this study, and the AVINENT IMPLANT SYSTEM S.L.U.for the donation of material and technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Buser, D.; Janner, S.F.M.; Brägger, U.; Ramseier, C.A.; Salvi, G.E. 10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hjalmarsson, L.; Gheisarifar, M.; Jemt, T. A systematic review of survival of single implants as presented in longitudinal studies with a follow-up of at least 10 years. Eur. J. Oral. Implantol. 2016, 9, S155–S162. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Gómez-Polo, M.; Ortega, R.; Gómez-Polo, C.; Celemin, A.; Del Rio Highsmith, J. Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Cemented or Screw-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Critical Review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 31, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sailer, I.; Mühlemann, S.; Zwahlen, M.; Hämmerle, C.H.; Schneider, D. Cemented and Screw-Retained Implant Reconstructions: A Systematic Review of the Survival and Complication Rates. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 163–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, Z.; Lin, C.-Y.; Li, J.; Wang, H.-L.; Yu, H. Influence of Abutment Height on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 122, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heimes, D.; Becker, P.; Pabst, A.; Smeets, R.; Kraus, A.; Hartmann, A.; Sagheb, K.; Kämmerer, P.W. How Does Dental Implant Macrogeometry Affect Primary Implant Stability? A Narrative Review. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2023, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Laleman, I.; Lambert, F. Implant Connection and Abutment Selection as a Predisposing and/or Precipitating Factor for Peri-Implant Diseases: A Review. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2023, 25, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sanz-Martín, I.; Sanz-Sánchez, I.; Carrillo de Albornoz, A.; Figuero, E.; Sanz, M. Effects of Modified Abutment Characteristics on Peri-implant Soft Tissue Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Canullo, L.; Menini, M.; Santori, G.; Rakic, M.; Sculean, A.; Pesce, P. Titanium Abutment Surface Modifications and Peri-Implant Tissue Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2020, 24, 1113–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Canullo, L.; Annunziata, M.; Pesce, P.; Tommasato, G.; Nastri, L.; Guida, L. Influence of Abutment Material and Modifications on Peri-Implant Soft-Tissue Attachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Histological Animal Studies. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tallarico, M.; Fiorellini, J.; Nakajima, Y.; Omori, Y.; Takahisa, I.; Canullo, L. Mechanical Outcomes, Microleakage, and Marginal Accuracy at the Implant-Abutment Interface of Original Versus Nonoriginal Implant Abutments: A Systematic Review of in Vitro Studies. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Del Amo, F.S.-L.; Romero-Bustillos, M.; Catena, A.; Galindo-Moreno, P.; Sánchez-Suárez, J.M.; Garaicoa-Pazmino, C. Effect of Abutment Height on Marginal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2022, 20221021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Molinero-Mourelle, P.; Cascos-Sanchez, R.; Yilmaz, B.; Lam WY, H.; Pow EH, N.; Del Río Highsmith, J.; Gómez-Polo, M. Effect of Fabrication Technique on the Microgap of Cad/cam Cobalt-Chrome and Zirconia Abutments on a Conical Connection Implant: An in Vitro Study. Materials 2021, 14, 2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mello, C.C.; Lemos, C.A.A.; de Luna Gomes, J.M.; Verri, F.R.; Pellizzer, E.P. Cad/cam Vs Conventional Technique for Fabrication of Implant-Supported Frameworks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of in Vitro Studies. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 32, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jemt, T.; Rubenstein, J.E.; Carlsson, L.; Lang, B.R. Measuring Fit at the Implant Prosthodontic Interface. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1996, 75, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Linkevicius, T. Zero Bone Loss Concepts, 1st ed.; Quintessence Publishing: Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Molinero-Mourelle, P.; Roccuzzo, A.; Yilmaz, B.; Lam, W.Y.H.; Pow, E.H.N.; Highsmith, J.D.R.; Gómez-Polo, M. Microleakage Assessment of Cad-Cam Cobalt-Chrome and Zirconia Abutments on a Conical Connection Dental Implant: A comparative in Vitro Study. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2022, 33, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Larrucea, C.; Olivares, D.; Padilla, C.; Barrera, A.; Lobos, O. Bacterial Microleakage at the Abutment-Implant Interface, in Vitro Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cortelli, S.C.; Cortelli, J.R.; Romeiro, R.L.; Costa, F.O.; Aquino, D.R.; Orzechowski, P.R.; Araújo, V.C.; Duarte, P.M. Frequency of Periodontal Pathogens in Equivalent Peri-Implant and Periodontal Clinical Statuses. Arch. Oral. Biol. 2013, 58, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mishra, S.K.; Chowdhary, R.; Kumari, S. Microleakage at the Different Implant Abutment Interface: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2017, 11, ZE10–ZE15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Caricasulo, R.; Malchiodi, L.; Ghensi, P.; Fantozzi, G.; Cucchi, A. The Influence of Implant-Abutment Connection to Peri-Implant Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Koutouzis, T. Implant-Abutment Connection as Contributing Factor to Peri-Implant Diseases. Periodontology 2000 2019, 81, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vetromilla, B.M.; Brondani, L.P.; Pereira-Cenci, T.; Bergoli, C.D. Influence of Different Implant-Abutment Connection Designs on the Mechanical and Biological Behavior of Single-Tooth Implants in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lauritano, D.; Moreo, G.; Lucchese, A.; Viganoni, C.; Limongelli, L.; Carinci, F. The Impact of Implant-Abutment Connection on Clinical Outcomes and Microbial Colonization: A Narrative Review. Materials 2020, 13, 1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Asvanund, P.; Morgano, S.M. Photoelastic Stress Analysis of External Versus Internal Implant-Abutment Connections. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2011, 106, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Salvi, G.E.; Bosshardt, D.D.; Lang, N.P.; Abrahamsson, I.; Berglundh, T.; Lindhe, J.; Ivanovski, S.; Donos, N. Temporal Sequence of Hard and Soft Tissue Healing Around Titanium Dental Implants. Periodontology 2000 2015, 68, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moráguez, O.D.; Belser, U.C. The Use of Polytetrafluoroethylene Tape for the Management of Screw Access Channels in Implant-Supported Prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2010, 103, 189–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. ISO/TS 11405:2015; Dentistry—Testing of Adhesion to Tooth Structure. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/62898.html (accessed on 27 April 2020).
  30. ISO 14801:2016; Dentistry-Implants–Dynamic Loading Test for Endosseous Dental Implants. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/61997.html (accessed on 27 April 2020).
  31. Gonzalo, E.; Vizoso, B.; Lopez-Suarez, C.; Diaz, P.; Pelaez, J.; Suarez, M.J. Evaluation of Milled Titanium Versus Laser Sintered Co-Cr Abutments on the Marginal Misfit in Internal Implant-Abutment Connection. Materials 2020, 13, 4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Baldassarri, M.; Hjerppe, J.; Romeo, D.; Fickl, S.; Thompson, V.P.; Stappert, C.F.J. Marginal Accuracy of Three Implant-Ceramic Abutment Configurations. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implant. 2012, 27, 537–543. [Google Scholar]
  33. de-Azevedo-Vaz, S.L.; Araujo-Siqueira, C.; Carneiro, V.C.; Oliveira, M.L.; Azeredo, R.A. Misfit Detection in Implant-Supported Prostheses of Different Compositions by Periapical Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography: An in vitro Study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 126, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gassino, G.; Barone Monfrin, S.; Scanu, M.; Spina, G.; Preti, G. Marginal Adaptation of Fixed Prosthodontics: A New in Vitro 360-Degree External Examination Procedure. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 17, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Vandeweghe, S.; Coelho, P.G.; Vanhove, C.; Wennerberg, A.; Jimbo, R. Utilizing Micro-Computed Tomography to Evaluate Bone Structure Surrounding Dental Implants: A Comparison with Histomorphometry. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part. B Appl. Biomater. 2013, 101, 1259–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ramalho, I.; Witek, L.; Coelho, P.G.; Bergamo, E.; Pegoraro, L.F.; Bonfante, E.A. Influence of Abutment Fabrication Method on 3d Fit at the Implant-Abutment Connection. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2020, 33, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Prasad, R.; Al-Kheraif, A.A. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Cad/cam Titanium and Ceramic Superstructures for Implant Abutments Using Spiral Scan Microtomography. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2013, 26, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Narra, N.; Antalainen, A.-K.; Zipprich, H.; Sándor, G.K.; Wolff, J. Microcomputed Tomography-Based Assessment of Retrieved Dental Implants. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implant. 2015, 30, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bagegni, A.; Zabler, S.; Nelson, K.; Rack, A.; Spies, B.C.; Vach, K.; Kohal, R. Synchrotron-Based Micro Computed Tomography Investigation of the Implant-Abutment Fatigue-Induced Microgap Changes. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 116, 104330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pan, Y.; Tsoi, J.K.H.; Lam, W.Y.H.; Pow, E.H.N. Implant Framework Misfit: A Systematic Review on Assessment Methods and Clinical Complications. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2021, 23, 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Queiroz, D.A.; Hagee, N.; Lee, D.J.; Zheng, F. The behavior of a zirconia or metal abutment on the implant-abutment interface during cyclic loading. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 124, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Block, M.S. Evidence-Based Criteria for an Ideal Abutment Implant Connection-A Narrative Review. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 80, 1670–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Katsoulis, J.; Takeichi, T.; Gaviria, A.S.; Peter, L.; Katsoulis, K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur. J. Oral. Implant. 2017, 10, 121–138. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jemt, T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: A study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implant. 1991, 3, 270–276. [Google Scholar]
  45. de França, D.G.B.; Morais, M.H.S.T.; das Neves, F.D.; Barbosa, G.A.S. Influence of Cad/cam on the Fit Accuracy of Implant-Supported Zirconia and Cobalt-Chromium Fixed Dental Prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 113, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Habib, S.R.; Alotaibi, A.; Al Hazza, N.; Allam, Y.; AlGhazi, M. Two-body wear behavior of human enamel versus monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, ceramometal and composite resin. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2019, 11, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Özcan, M.; Jonasch, M. Effect of Cyclic Fatigue Tests on Aging and Their Translational Implications for Survival of All-Ceramic Tooth-Borne Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prostheses. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 27, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 16 06532 g001
Figure 1. Prosthetic components of the specimens of both groups.
Figure 1. Prosthetic components of the specimens of both groups.
Materials 16 06532 g001
Materials 16 06532 g002
Figure 2. Chewing simulation machine. (a) Specimen placed in metal box with 30 degrees of inclination; (b) representative image of load application.
Figure 2. Chewing simulation machine. (a) Specimen placed in metal box with 30 degrees of inclination; (b) representative image of load application.
Materials 16 06532 g002
Materials 16 06532 g003
Figure 3. Representative SEM images for microgap assessment. (a) Control group specimen (10 magnifications); (b) test group specimen (10 magnification); (c) control group specimen (1000 magnifications); (d) test group specimen (1000 magnification).
Figure 3. Representative SEM images for microgap assessment. (a) Control group specimen (10 magnifications); (b) test group specimen (10 magnification); (c) control group specimen (1000 magnifications); (d) test group specimen (1000 magnification).
Materials 16 06532 g003
Materials 16 06532 g004
Figure 4. SEM image (1000 magnification) measurements corresponding to the buccal point of the molar of specimen 1 of the Ti-base group.
Figure 4. SEM image (1000 magnification) measurements corresponding to the buccal point of the molar of specimen 1 of the Ti-base group.
Materials 16 06532 g004
Materials 16 06532 g005
Figure 5. Representative box plot for microgap (μm) at the implant–abutment interface according to total values per implant.
Figure 5. Representative box plot for microgap (μm) at the implant–abutment interface according to total values per implant.
Materials 16 06532 g005
Materials 16 06532 g006
Figure 6. Representative bar chart of mean misfit values (μm) among the evaluated groups per area (MB: mesiobuccal, B: buccal, DB: distobuccal, ML: mesiolingual, L: lingual, DL: distolingual).
Figure 6. Representative bar chart of mean misfit values (μm) among the evaluated groups per area (MB: mesiobuccal, B: buccal, DB: distobuccal, ML: mesiolingual, L: lingual, DL: distolingual).
Materials 16 06532 g006
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for microgap (μm) per assessed area and group.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for microgap (μm) per assessed area and group.
GroupAreaMeanStandard DeviationMedian MinimumMaximum
Control group (transmucosal abutment)
(N = 30)		MB *0.250.170.220.110.78
B *0.150.100.110.110.45
DB *0.290.280.230.111.52
ML *0.420.310.340.111.20
L *0.190.190.110.110.99
DL *0.320.180.290.110.74
T *0.270.120.250.110.65
Test Group
(Ti-base)
(N = 30)		MB *4.488.700.770.1137.08
B *2.604.170.940.1117.77
DB *2.112.361.120.1110.41
ML *5.1711.240.980.3349.50
L *4.699.181.110.1139.91
DL *4.379.091.260.1146.92
T *3.906.301.250.6425.22
* MB: mesiobuccal, B: buccal, DB: distobuccal, ML: mesiolingual, L: lingual, DL: distolingual, T: total per implant.
Table 2. Comparison of microgap (μm) measured between transmucosal abutment and Ti-base abutment groups using Mann–Whitney U test.
Table 2. Comparison of microgap (μm) measured between transmucosal abutment and Ti-base abutment groups using Mann–Whitney U test.
Area
MB Gap B Gap DB Gap ML Gap L Gap DL Gap T Gap
Mann–Whitney U54.5026.5056.50109.0037.0067.001.00
Z−5.87−6.47−5.84−5.05−6.24−5.67−6.64
Significance *0.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.001
MB: mesiobuccal, B: buccal, DB: distobuccal, ML: mesiolingual, L: lingual, DL: distolingual, T: total per implant. * Significance level at 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cascos, R.; Celemín-Viñuela, A.; Mory-Rubiños, N.; Gómez-Polo, C.; Ortega, R.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Gómez-Polo, M. Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant–Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study. Materials 2023, 16, 6532. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196532

AMA Style

Cascos R, Celemín-Viñuela A, Mory-Rubiños N, Gómez-Polo C, Ortega R, Agustín-Panadero R, Gómez-Polo M. Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant–Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study. Materials. 2023; 16(19):6532. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196532

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cascos, Rocío, Alicia Celemín-Viñuela, Nataly Mory-Rubiños, Cristina Gómez-Polo, Rocío Ortega, Rubén Agustín-Panadero, and Miguel Gómez-Polo. 2023. "Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant–Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study" Materials 16, no. 19: 6532. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196532

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop