Connecting accuracy of interchanged prosthetic abutments to different dental implants using scanning electron microscopy

Abstract

The present study evaluated the interchangeability of prosthetic components for external hexagon implants by measuring the precision of the implant/abutment (I/A) interface with scanning electron microscopy. Ten implants for each of three brands (SIN, Conexão, Neodent) were tested with their respective abutments (milled CoCr collar rotational and non-rotational) and another of an alternative manufacturer (Microplant) in randomly arranged I/A combinations. The degree of interchangeability between the various brands of components was defined using the original abutment interface gap with its respective implant as the benchmark dimension. Accordingly, when the result for a given component placed on an implant was equal to or smaller then that gap measured when the original component of the same brand as the implant was positioned, interchangeability was considered valid. Data were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test at 5% significance level. Some degree of misfit was observed in all specimens. Generally, the non-rotational component was more accurate than its rotational counterpart. The latter samples ranged from 0.6-16.9 µm, with a 4.6 µm median; and the former from 0.3-12.9 µm, with a 3.4 µm median. Specimens with the abutment and fixture from Conexão had larger microgap than the original set for SIN and Neodent (p<0.05). Even though the latter systems had similar results with their respective components, their interchanged abutments did not reproduce the original accuracy. The results suggest that the alternative brand abutment would have compatibility with all systems while the other brands were not completely interchangeable.

Loosening of the fixing screw in single implant crowns: predisposing factors, prevention and treatment options

“…The main doubt about the use of generic or compatible abutments is that their manufacturing procedure may not always be strictly standardized and controlled, resulting to less accurate fit in the implant‐abutment interface …”

“…88 The main doubt about the use of generic or compatible abutments is that their manufacturing procedure may not always be strictly standardized and controlled, resulting to less accurate fit in the implantabutment interface. 89 The fit of the abutment in the interior part of the abutment and the absolute contact of the fixing screw in the interior thread of the implant were investigated in an in vitro study by Matheos et al 90 Although this investigation was a pilot study with limited number of specimens, the authors found discrepancies between tested components. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) of the components indicated that inaccurate fit may lead to deformation during tightening of the fixing screw.…”

Micromorphological differences of the implant‐abutment junction and in vitro load testing for three different titanium abutments on Straumann tissue level implants

“…Zanardi et al. () observed misfit in general in all compatible specimens studied, with the median misfit “gap” being 3.4 μm for the non‐rotational and 4.6 μm for the rotational parts of the junction. Berberi et al.…”

Microbiological Sealing Analysis of a Tapered Connection and External Hexagon System

“…It is also important to consider that the use of components from the same manufacturer may improve the stability and sealing of implant systems, which is directly related to the success of implant-based rehabilitations [19]. Additionally, the machining quality minimized micromovements when loading forces are applied.…”