Marginal Fit and Microgaps of Implant-abutment Interface with Internal Anti-rotation Configuration

Abstract

is no evidence that internal anti-rotation configurations are better than external ones. As part of a study to clarify the features and advantages of internal anti-rotation configurations, the objective of the present investigation was to compare and evaluate the marginal fit and size of microgap at the implant-abutment interface for several external and internal anti-rotation configurations. To this end, three internal connection and two external hex connection implantabutment assemblies were examined in this study. The implant-abutment interface (I-A interface) was evaluated using three geometrical factors: vertical and horizontal discrepancies and size of microgap. Marginal fit and microgap size were measured by a scanning laser microscope. The I-A interface was also observed using a scanning electron microscope. Mean vertical discrepancy ranged from 22.6 to 62.2 μm, while horizontal discrepancy ranged from -27.1 to 16.0 μm. The microgap values of all I-A interfaces assessed in this study ranged from 2.3 to 5.6 μm. In conclusion, SEM images of I-A interface suggested no relationship between the geometrical factors and the type of anti-rotation configuration.

Evaluation of the marginal fit at implant–abutment interface by optical coherence tomography

“…34 Many previous studies have discussed the harmful effect caused by marginal misfit of the implantabutment interface; however, there is no evidence of the acceptable range of misfit. Most authors empirically accept 120 μm as the maximum tolerable misfit of dental restorations.…”

Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review

“…Of them, one was a randomized clinical trial [11] and two were retrospective studies [1,12] (Table 2). However, studies that evaluated one connection type (Table 3) and Evaluation of a new implant design Arlin [35] Demonstration of how a computer software program was used to supplement a implant system clinical evaluation Akça et al [36] Evaluation of mechanical characteristics of the implant-abutment connection with a reduced diameter Scarano et al [37] Evaluation of microgap presence between abutments and implants in screwed and cemented abutment connections Novaes Jr et al [38]; Oliveira et al [39] Analysis of different interimplant distances of implants restored with platform switch Tsuge et al [40] Evaluation of implant-abutment interface with internal anti-rotation configuration Weng et al [41]; Weng et al [42];…”

Effects of different implant–abutment connections on micromotion and stress distribution: Prediction of microgap formation

“…In the worst-case scenario, such inflammation will cause gingivitis, bone loss, and eventually, implant failure. 6,7,9 Although peri-implant therapy can be used to treat peri-implant disease, bone loss that has already occurred is irreversible, and implant failure is still a common complication following therapy. 10 It is therefore prudent to prevent bacterial colonisation by having a tight seal at the implant-abutment interface.…”

“…2 Microgaps between the implant-abutment interface may cause microbial leakage 3,4 as microorganisms can penetrate through a gap as small as 10 mm. 5 This penetration will result in bacterial colonisation through plaque formation at the interface of the implant-abutment complex, [6][7][8] leading to inflammation in peri-implant soft and hard tissues. In the worst-case scenario, such inflammation will cause gingivitis, bone loss, and eventually, implant failure.…”