Microbial leakage through the implant–abutment interface of morse taper implants <i>in vitro</i>

Aloise, João Pedro; Curcio, Ricardo; Laporta, Marcia Zorello; Rossi, Liliane; Silva, Adriana Madeira Alvares da; Rapoport, Abrão

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01837.x

Cited by 125 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Poor fit of attached components, inadequate torque, geometry of the implant platforms between the various implant systems, poor stability and micro-movements in the deeper inner portions of the system may enhance the extent of bacterial leakage (Binon 2000;Aloise et al 2010). Such microgaps may function as 'nests' for anaerobic or microaerophilic bacteria to be protected form host defense mechanisms and persist for extended periods.…”

Section: Bacteria In the Implant-abutment Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology

Belibasakis

Charalampakis

Bostancı

et al. 2014

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biofilms are complex microbial communities that grow on various surfaces in nature. The oral micobiota tend to form polymicrobial biofilms, particularly on the hard mineralized surfaces of teeth, which may impact on oral health and disease. They can cause inflammation of the adjacent tooth-supporting (periodontal) tissues, leading to destructive periodontal disease and tooth loss. The emergence of osseointegrated dental implants as a restorative treatment option for replacing missing teeth has also brought along new artificial surfaces within the oral cavity, on which oral bacteria can form biofilms. As in the case of natural teeth, biofilms on implant surfaces may also trigger infection and cause inflammatory destruction of the peri-implant tissue (i.e. peri-implantitis). While there are strong similarities in the composition of the mixed microbial flora between periodontal and peri-implant infections, there are also a few distinctive differences. The immunological events underlying the pathogenesis of peri-implant infections are qualitatively similar, yet more extensive, compared to periodontal infections, resulting in a faster progression of tissue destruction. This chapter summarizes the current knowledge on the microbiology and immunology of peri-implant infections, including findings from the peri-implant crevicular fluid, the inflammatory exudate of the peri-implant tissue. Moreover, it discusses the diagnosis and current approaches for the treatment of oral infections.

show abstract

Section: Bacteria In the Implant-abutment Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology

Belibasakis

Charalampakis

Bostancı

et al. 2014

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In two-piece dental implant systems, progressive colonization of periodontopathogenic bacteria has been found in the space between implant components that was associated with inflammation of the peri-implant soft tissue and peri-implant bone loss 15) . Two-component implant systems also present gaps at the implant-abutment connection and the screw access hole, providing a reservoir and channel for bacterial colonization 9,12,15) . Up to now, studies have only focused on the technique, esthetic outcome, and effect on the retention of suprastructures and only one study has compared biological aspects of different screw hole filling materials [2][3][4]16,17) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The technique selected for filling screw access channels depends upon the personal preference of the dentist and may influence abutment crown retention 1,4,5) . Multiple studies have shown that bacterial colonization of the implant-abutment interface and the internal implant cavity is an important factor in the etiology and pathogenesis of peri-implant inflammation and marginal bone loss [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] . In two-piece dental implant systems, progressive colonization of periodontopathogenic bacteria has been found in the space between implant components that was associated with inflammation of the peri-implant soft tissue and peri-implant bone loss 15) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental materials and their performance for the management of screw access channels in implant-supported restorations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unsuccessfully sealed screw access channels of prosthetic implant abutments may lead to malodor or peri-implant diseases in gingival tissues adjacent to implant-supported restorations. Therefore, 72 sets of screw channel analogs with six different materials incorporated (Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), wax, gutta-percha, cavit, endofrost-pellets and cotton pellets) were exposed (2.5 h, 37°C) to Streptococcus mutans, oralis and Candida albicans suspensions. Bacterial adherence was quantified by using the fluorescence dye, Alamar Blue/resazurin, and an automated multifunctional reader. For quantification of fungal adherence the ATP-based bioluminescence approach was used. High relative fluorescence and luminescence intensities (>10,000), indicating high adhesion of streptococci and fungi were found for cotton and endofrost-pellets and low intensities (<5,000) for wax, gutta-percha, cavit and PTFE. The quantity of bacterial and fungal adhesion differed significantly between the assessed various sealing materials. In conclusion and within the limitations of this study, wax, gutta-percha, cavit and PTFE should be preferred as sealing materials.

show abstract

“…Two-piece implants have a microgap depending on the interface type or system, but presence of fluid flow at this interface and its relationships are very variable [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] . This has been correlated to the presence of bacterial infiltration and inflammatory cells that may lead to bone loss around this area 19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been explained by the stress distribution of the implant's long axis during function. The greater stability of the soft tissues provided by the tapered abutment design and its reduced diameter relative to the platform and absence of abutment micromobility by the self-locking feature reduces bacterial leakage at the interface or even prevents it [3][4][5][6][7] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial microleakage at the implant-abutment interface in Morse taper implants

Silva-Neto¹,

Majadas²,

Prudente³

et al. 2014

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the microleakage at the implant-abutment (I-A) interface of Morse tapered implants inoculated with different volumes of bacterial suspension. Methods: Morse tapered I-A sets were selected and divided in two groups depending on the type of abutment: passing screw (PS) and solid (S), and then subdivided into four subgroups (n=6) according to the suspension volume: PS1: 0.1 µL; PS3: 0.3 µL; PS5: 0.5 µL; PS7: 0.7 µL; S1: 0.1 µL; S3: 0.3 µL; S5: 0.5 µL and S7: 0.7 µL. A control test was performed to verify the presence of external contamination during the inoculation and the implants were incubated for microbiological analysis. The microleakage was evaluated every 24 h for 7 days by the clarity of solution. After this period, the implants were disassembled for confirmation of bacterial viability. Results: All the specimens with 0.7 µL and one sample of S5 presented turbidity in the control test indicating external contamination, and were excluded from the study. After 7 days of observation, none of the specimens presented positive results for microleakage and the bacterial viability was confirmed in all specimens. The 0.1 µL and 0.3 µL volumes did not present bacterial microleakage, meaning that these volumes may be inadequate for analysis. Conclusions: None of the sets evaluated showed bacterial microleakage at the I-A interface and the volume of 0.7 µL exceeded the internal capacity of the implants.

show abstract

Microbial leakage through the implant–abutment interface of morse taper implants in vitro

Abstract: Irrespective of which of the two morse taper implant connection systems of activation was analyzed, tapped-in (Bicon) or screwed-in (Ankylos), this in vitro experiment showed bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface.

Cited by 125 publications

References 27 publications

Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology

Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology

Dental materials and their performance for the management of screw access channels in implant-supported restorations

Bacterial microleakage at the implant-abutment interface in Morse taper implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About