The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of abutment materials on the implant-abutment joint stability in internal conical connection type implant systems

  • Jo, Jae-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentisty, Pusan National University) ;
  • Yang, Dong-Seok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentisty, Pusan National University) ;
  • Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentisty, Pusan National University) ;
  • Heo, Jae-Chan (Osstem Dental Implant Research Center (Osstem Implant)) ;
  • Yun, Mi-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentisty, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentisty, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2014.02.24
  • Accepted : 2014.08.05
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study evaluated the influence of abutment materials on the stability of the implant-abutment joint in internal conical connection type implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Internal conical connection type implants, cement-retained abutments, and tungsten carbide-coated abutment screws were used. The abutments were fabricated with commercially pure grade 3 titanium (group T3), commercially pure grade 4 titanium (group T4), or Ti-6Al-4V (group TA) (n=5, each). In order to assess the amount of settlement after abutment fixation, a 30-Ncm tightening torque was applied, then the change in length before and after tightening the abutment screw was measured, and the preload exerted was recorded. The compressive bending strength was measured under the ISO14801 conditions. In order to determine whether there were significant changes in settlement, preload, and compressive bending strength before and after abutment fixation depending on abutment materials, one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post-hoc test was performed. RESULTS. Group TA exhibited the smallest mean change in the combined length of the implant and abutment before and after fixation, and no difference was observed between groups T3 and T4 (P>.05). Group TA exhibited the highest preload and compressive bending strength values, followed by T4, then T3 (P<.001). CONCLUSION. The abutment material can influence the stability of the interface in internal conical connection type implant systems. The strength of the abutment material was inversely correlated with settlement, and positively correlated with compressive bending strength. Preload was inversely proportional to the frictional coefficient of the abutment material.

Keywords

References

  1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  2. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.
  3. van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I, Higuchi K, Laney W, Linden U, Astrand P. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:272-81.
  4. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:329-36. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070405.x
  5. Eckert SE, Wollan PC. Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:415-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70155-6
  6. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:451-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90237-7
  7. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90177-E
  8. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1276-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01581.x
  9. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7.
  10. Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA. Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:592-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90443-X
  11. Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T, Coffey JP. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:529-36.
  12. Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:326-34.
  13. Taylor TD. Prosthodontic problems and limitations associated with osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:74-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70197-0
  14. Khraisat A, Abu-Hammad O, Al-Kayed AM, Dar-Odeh N. Stability of the implant/abutment joint in a single-tooth external-hexagon implant system: clinical and mechanical review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6:222-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00038.x
  15. Kitagawa T, Tanimoto Y, Odaki M, Nemoto K, Aida M. Influence of implant/abutment joint designs on abutment screw loosening in a dental implant system. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;75:457-63.
  16. Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y. Influence of lateral-oblique cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of internal and external hexagon implants. Dent Mater J 2009;28:373-81. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.373
  17. Khayat PG, Hallage PG, Toledo RA. An investigation of 131 consecutively placed wide screw-vent implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:827-32.
  18. Balfour A, O'Brien GR. Comparative study of antirotational single tooth abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80270-7
  19. Smedberg JI, Nilner K, Rangert B, Svensson SA, Glantz SA. On the influence of superstructure connection on implant preload: a methodological and clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:55-63. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070107.x
  20. Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:360-70.
  21. English CE. Biomechanical concerns with fixed partial dentures involving implants. Implant Dent 1993;2:221-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199312000-00002
  22. Weinberg LA. Reduction of implant loading with therapeutic biomechanics. Implant Dent 1998;7:277-85. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199807040-00005
  23. McGlumphy EA, Mendel DA, Holloway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:71-89.
  24. Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different screw materials and surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:24-32. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.116230
  25. Simon RL. Single implant-supported molar and premolar crowns: a ten-year retrospective clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:517-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.025
  26. Motosh N. Development of design charts for bolts preloaded up to the plastic range. J Manuf Sci Eng 1976;98:849-51.
  27. Jorneus L, Jemt T, Carlsson L. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:353-9.
  28. Park JK, Choi JU, Jeon YC, Choi KS, Jeong CM. Effects of abutment screw coating on implant preload. J Prosthodont 2010;19:458-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00595.x
  29. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26.
  30. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:290-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x
  31. Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: biomechanical study of flat top versus conical. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:33-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00104.x
  32. Theoharidou A, Petridis HP, Tzannas K, Garefis P. Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:681-90.
  33. Winkler S, Ring K, Ring JD, Boberick KG. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: overview. J Oral Implantol 2003;29:242-5. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0242:ISMATS>2.3.CO;2
  34. Lee JS, Lee JS. Effect of various abutment systems on the removal torque and the abutment settling in the conical connection implant systems. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2012;50:92-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.2.92
  35. Bressan E, Paniz G, Lops D, Corazza B, Romeo E, Favero G. Influence of abutment material on the gingival color of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:631-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02008.x
  36. Tamura Y, Yokoyama A, Watari F, Kawasaki T. Surface properties and biocompatibility of nitrided titanium for abrasion resistant implant materials. Dent Mater J 2002;21:355-72. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.21.355
  37. Mengel R, Meer C, Flores-de-Jacoby L. The treatment of uncoated and titanium nitride-coated abutments with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:232-8.
  38. Niinomi M. Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 1998;243:231-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00806-X
  39. Bickford J. An Introduction to the design and behavior of bolted Joints. 3rd ed. New York, Marcel Dekker, 1995.
  40. Corazza PH, de Moura Silva A, Cavalcanti Queiroz JR, Salazar Marocho SM, Bottino MA, Massi M, de Assuncao e Souza RO. Carbon film coating of abutment surfaces: effect on the abutment screw removal torque. Implant Dent 2014;23:434-8.
  41. Budinski KG. Tribological properties of titanium alloys. Wear 1991;151:203-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(91)90249-T

Cited by

  1. Influence of Abutment Surface Treatments on Screw Loosening of Morse Taper Implants vol.26, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000622
  2. Loosening of the fixing screw in single implant crowns: predisposing factors, prevention and treatment options vol.29, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12303
  3. Synergistic interactions between corrosion and wear at titanium-based dental implant connections: A scoping review vol.52, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12469
  4. Dental implants: An overview vol.44, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2017.44.7.596
  5. Effect of Coated Surfaces influencing Screw Loosening in Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis vol.8, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1493
  6. Influence of grade and surface topography of commercially pure titanium on fatigue properties vol.37, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-125
  7. Sandblasted and Acid Etched Titanium Dental Implant Surfaces Systematic Review and Confocal Microscopy Evaluation vol.12, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12111763
  8. Mechanism of and factors associated with the loosening of the implant abutment screw: A review vol.31, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12494
  9. Comparison of CAD/CAM abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal type implant after cyclic loading: Axial displacement, removal torque, and tensile removal force vol.11, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.6.305
  10. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry vol.39, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-285
  11. Biomechanical Design Application on the Effect of Different Occlusion Conditions on Dental Implants with Different Positions-A Finite Element Analysis vol.10, pp.17, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175826
  12. Biomechanical behavior of three different types of internal tapered connections after cyclic and static loading tests: experimental in vitro vol.6, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00228-4