The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Influence of the implant-abutment connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability

  • Shin, Hyon-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Yun, Mi-Jeong (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeon, Young-Chan (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University) ;
  • Chang, Brian Myung (Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland Clinic) ;
  • Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2012.12.06
  • Accepted : 2014.01.17
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the implant-abutment connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Regular and wide-diameter implant systems with three different joint connection designs: an external butt joint, a one-stage internal cone, and a two-stage internal cone were divided into seven groups (n=5, in each group). The initial removal torque values of the abutment screw were measured with a digital torque gauge. The postload removal torque values were measured after 100,000 cycles of a 150 N and a 10 Hz cyclic load had been applied. Subsequently, the rates of the initial and postload removal torque losses were calculated to evaluate the effect of the joint connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability. Each group was compared using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test as post-hoc test (${\alpha}$=0.05). RESULTS. The postload removal torque value was high in the following order with regard to magnitude: two-stage internal cone, one-stage internal cone, and external butt joint systems. In the regular-diameter group, the external butt joint and one-stage internal cone systems showed lower postload removal torque loss rates than the two-stage internal cone system. In the wide-diameter group, the external butt joint system showed a lower loss rate than the one-stage internal cone and two-stage internal cone systems. In the two-stage internal cone system, the wide-diameter group showed a significantly lower loss rate than the regular-diameter group (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The results of this study showed that the external butt joint was more advantageous than the internal cone in terms of the postload removal torque loss. For the difference in the implant diameter, a wide diameter was more advantageous in terms of the torque loss rate.

Keywords

References

  1. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:179-83.
  2. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Gröndahl K. 3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brånemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:340-9.
  3. Misch CE, Wang HL, Misch CM, Sharawy M, Lemons J, Judy KW. Rationale for the application of immediate load in implant dentistry: Part I. Implant Dent 2004;13:207-17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000140461.25451.31
  4. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7.
  5. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Sadler JP, McKay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:270-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9
  6. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Solnit G. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: results of loading for 2 or more years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:516-20.
  7. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Saunders SL. A multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: preliminary results at 6 or more months of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:237-42.
  8. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:137-41.
  9. 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.
  10. Friberg B, Sennerby L, Linden B, Gröndahl K, Lekholm U. Stability measurements of one-stage Branemark implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical resonance frequency analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:266-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(99)80156-8
  11. Wilson TG, Kornman KS. Fundamentals of periodontics. Chicago; Quintessence; 2003. p. 582.
  12. Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt A, Dahlén G, Lindhe J. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Branemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:90-5. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070201.x
  13. Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Iezzi G, Leghissa GC, Quaranta A, Tortora P, Piattelli A. A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments. J Oral Implantol 2005;31:269-75. https://doi.org/10.1563/753.1
  14. King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002;73:1111-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.10.1111
  15. Dibart S, Warbington M, Su MF, Skobe Z. In vitro evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: the locking taper system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:732-7.
  16. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Carinci F. Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants: a retrospective study of 510 implants. J Periodontol 2008;79:49-54. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070248
  17. Langer B, Langer L, Herrmann I, Jorneus L. The wide fixture: a solution for special bone situations and a rescue for the compromised implant. Part 1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:400-8.
  18. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.
  19. Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF. A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:299-308.
  20. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020206.x
  21. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant sys- tems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:212-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070303.x
  22. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  23. Hobkirk JA, Schwab J. Mandibular deformation in subjects with osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:319-28.
  24. 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
  25. Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:67-73. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0067:TRBIPA>2.3.CO;2
  26. Cantwell A, Hobkirk JA. Preload loss in gold prosthesis-retaining screws as a function of time. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:124-32.
  27. 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
  28. Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:156-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011S1156.x
  29. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:76-94.
  30. Sakaguchi RL, Borgersen SE. Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:295-302.
  31. Choi JU, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Lim JS, Jeong HC, Eom TG. Influence of tungsten carbide/carbon coating on the preload of implant abutment screws. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2006;44:229-42.
  32. Shin HM, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Yun MJ, Yoon JH. Influence of tightening torque on implant-abutment screw joint stability. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2008;46:396-408.
  33. Park JK, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Yoon JH. Influence of tungsten carbide/carbon coating of implant-abutment screw on screw loosening. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2008;46:137-47.
  34. Hoyer SA, Stanford CM, Buranadham S, Fridrich T, Wagner J, Gratton D. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant- abutment interface: joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:599-607. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115250
  35. Gratton DG, Aquilino SA, Stanford CM. Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:47-52. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.112796
  36. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:581-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01398.x

Cited by

  1. Evaluation of Bacterial Leakage at Implant-Abutment Connection: An 11-Degree Morse Taper Compared to a Butt Joint Connection vol.2016, pp.1687-8795, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8527849
  2. Effect of abutment screw length and cyclic loading on removal torque in external and internal hex implants vol.8, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.62
  3. In Vitro Evaluation of Manual Torque Values Applied to Implant-Abutment Complex by Different Clinicians and Abutment Screw Loosening vol.2017, pp.2314-6141, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7376261
  4. 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
  5. Impact of Intentional Overload on Joint Stability of Internal Implant-Abutment Connection System with Different Diameter pp.1059941X, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12661
  6. Effect of Angle and Type of Customized Abutment (Castable & Cast-to) on Torque Loss and Fracture Resistance After Cyclic Loading vol.12, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601811120987
  7. Effect of lateral oblique cyclic loading on microleakage and screw loosening of implants with different connections vol.12, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.028
  8. Effect of different angulations and collar lengths of conical hybrid implant abutment on screw loosening after dynamic cyclic loading vol.4, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0149-z
  9. 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
  10. Review of the Mechanical Behavior of Different Implant–Abutment Connections vol.17, pp.22, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228685
  11. Analysis of Torque Maintenance and Fracture Resistance after Fatigue in Retention Screws Made of Different Metals for Screw-Retained Implant-Borne Prosthesis Joints vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9693239