Physicochemical and microscopic characterization of implant-abutment joints

Abstract

Objective:The purpose of this study was to investigate Morse taper implant–abutment joints by chemical, mechanical, and microscopic analysis.Materials and Methods:Surfaces of 10 Morse taper implants and the correlated abutments were inspected by field emission gun-scanning electron microscopy (FEG-SEM) before connection. The implant–abutment connections were tightened at 32 Ncm. For microgap evaluation by FEG-SEM, the systems were embedded in epoxy resin and cross-sectioned at a perpendicular plane of the implant–abutment joint. Furthermore, nanoindentation tests and chemical analysis were performed at the implant–abutment joints.Statistics:Results were statistically analyzed via one-way analysis of variance, with a significance level of P < 0.05.Results:Defects were noticed on different areas of the abutment surfaces. The minimum and maximum size of microgaps ranged from 0.5 μm up to 5.6 μm. Furthermore, defects were detected throughout the implant–abutment joint that can, ultimately, affect the microgap size after connection. Nanoindentation tests revealed a higher hardness (4.2 ± 0.4 GPa) for abutment composed of Ti6Al4V alloy when compared to implant composed of commercially pure Grade 4 titanium (3.2 ± 0.4 GPa).Conclusions:Surface defects produced during the machining of both implants and abutments can increase the size of microgaps and promote a misfit of implant–abutment joints. In addition, the mismatch in mechanical properties between abutment and implant can promote the wear of surfaces, affecting the size of microgaps and consequently the performance of the joints during mastication.

Potential Causes of Titanium Particle and Ion Release in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review

“…The mismatch between implant and abutment components (micro-gap) can be increased by micromotion phenomena under functional loading, which could result in increased friction, microleakage, material wear, titanium particle release and screw loosening [ 68 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]. Braian et al [ 71 ] evaluated the horizontal micro-gap between abutments and implants with external and internal hexagonal connections.…”

“…The physicochemical and microscopic characteristics of different implant-abutment configurations were evaluated, and without exception, defects from 0.5 to 5.6 μm were present in all the samples. Therefore, the original micro-gap between the parts can lead to micromotion and wear, the release of more particles, the penetration of oral fluids and bacteria into the connection, the initiation of corrosion, as well as potential late failures [ 68 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ].…”

Avaliação da interface entre o componente protético reto e a conexão interna tipo Cone Morse do implante dentário por meio da microscopia eletrônica de varredura

“…No entanto, os valores médios dos microgaps foram bem maiores do que o presente trabalho de pesquisa e isto pode ser explicado pelo fato de os implantes serem de marcas e design diferentes. No trabalho de Lopes et al 20 , que utilizaram implantes do tipo Cone Morse da Neodent®, apresentaram-se valores médios maiores do que os verificados em nossa pesquisa. Contudo, os valores máximo e mínimo foram semelhantes.…”

“…A preparação das amostras iniciou-se seguindo a orientação do fabricante: os munhões retos foram adaptados, com torque de 32 N/cm 2 , ao implante. Após isso, imergiram-se todas as amostras em cubos de Resina Epóxi ES260, a fim de se confeccionar uma base que permitisse a secção longitudinal 19,20 , que foi realizada na cortadora de precisão Struers Minitom (Struers Inc.Cleveland, USA), com o disco de corte diamantado sob refrigeração (Figura 1). A secção longitudinal de todas as amostras foi refinada até que cerca de 50% do volume tivesse sido removido com lixas d'água de diferentes granulações de nº 80 a 1.600 (3M, São Paulo, Brasil) e, em seguida, realizou-se polimento com feltro e pasta de alumínio.…”

Measurement of gap between abutment and fixture in dental conical connection implants. A focused ion beam SEM observation

“…In fact, in previous studies, ordinary observations were carried out by sectioning the samples with microtomes or by electroerosion. Such methods gave rise to considerable artifacts due to the metal surface deformation of the samples occurring in the area where the gap is present and connected with the action of milling or the electroerosion itself ( 13 ).…”