Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections

被引:102
|
作者
Piattelli, A
Scarano, A
Paolantonio, M
Assenza, B
Leghissa, GC
Di Bonaventura, G
Catamo, G
Piccolomini, R
机构
[1] Univ G dAnnunzio, Sch Dent, Chieti, Italy
[2] UCL Eastman Dent Inst Oral Hlth Care Sci, London, England
[3] Univ G dAnnunzio, Dept Biomed Sci, Clin Microbiol Lab, Chieti, Italy
关键词
comparison studies; dental implants/microbiology; dental cements/microbiology; dental abutments; screw-retained; cement-retained;
D O I
10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background: It has been recently observed that in implants with screw-retained abutments, in in vitro as well as in vivo conditions, bacteria can penetrate inside the internal cavity of the implant as a consequence of leakage at the implant-abutment interface. An alternative to screw-retained abutments is represented by implants that can receive cemented abutments. In this case, the abutment goes through a transmucosal friction implant extension (collar) and is cemented inside the internal hexagonal portion of the implant. The aim of the present research was to compare fluids and bacterial penetration in 2 different implant systems, one with cement-retained abutments (CRA) and the other with screw-retained abutments (SRA). Methods: Twelve CRA dental implants and 12 SRA implants were used in this study. The research was done in 3 steps: scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis, fluid penetration analysis, and bacterial penetration analysis. Results: 1) Under SEM it was possible to observe in the SRA implants a mean 2 to 7 mu gap between implant and abutment, while in the CRA implants, the gap was 7 mu. In the latter group, however, the gap was always completely filled by the fixation cement. All the spaces between abutment and implant were filled by the cement. 2) With SRA implants, it was possible to observe the presence of toluidine blue at the level of the fixture-abutment interface and the internal threads; the absorbent paper was stained in all cases. With CPA implants, the absorbent paper inside the hollow portion of the implants was never stained by toluidine blue. No penetration of toluidine blue was observed at the implant-abutment interface and inside the hollow portion of the implants. 3) In all the SRA implant assemblies, bacterial penetration was observed at the implant-abutment interface. No bacteria were detected in the hollow portion of the CRA implants. Conclusion: On the basis of the results obtained in the present study using 2 different implant systems, we conclude that CRA implants offer better results relating to fluid and bacterial permeability compared to SRA implants.
引用
收藏
页码:1146 / 1150
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Additively manufactured implant abutment screw-access guide to remove a cement-retained implant crown: A technique
    Revilla-Leon, Marta
    Abaei, Delaram Seyedeh
    Tittle, Adam
    Zandinejad, Amirali
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2022, 127 (02): : 219 - 222
  • [32] INFLUENCE OF SCREW ACCESS ON THE RETENTION OF CEMENT-RETAINED IMPLANT PROSTHESES
    Barbosa da Rocha, Paulo Vicente
    Freitas, Mirella Aguiar
    Alves da Cunha, Tiago de Morais
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2013, 109 (04): : 264 - 268
  • [33] Effects of Abutment and Screw Access Channel Modification on Dislodgement of Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Restorations
    Wadhwani, Chandur
    Hess, Timothy
    Pineyro, Alfonso
    Chung, Kwok-Hung
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2013, 26 (01) : 54 - 56
  • [34] Using a guide template with a handpiece sleeve to locate the abutment screw position of a cement-retained implant restoration
    Kang, Hye-Won
    Lee, Du-Hyeong
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2015, 114 (03): : 339 - 342
  • [35] TEMPLATE TO DETERMINE THE POSITION AND ANGULATION OF THE ABUTMENT SCREW CHANNEL FOR IMPLANT-SUPPORTED, CEMENT-RETAINED RESTORATIONS
    Lautensack, Julia
    Weber, Volker
    Wolfart, Stefan
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2012, 107 (02): : 134 - 136
  • [36] Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review
    Manawar, Ahmad
    Dhanasekar, B.
    Aparna, I. N.
    Naim, Hina
    JOURNAL OF OSSEOINTEGRATION, 2012, 4 (03) : 43 - 47
  • [37] Effect of Implant Abutment Modification on the Extrusion of Excess Cement at the Crown-Abutment Margin for Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
    Wadhwani, Chandur
    Pineyro, Alfonso
    Hess, Timothy
    Zhang, Hai
    Chung, Kwok-Hung
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2011, 26 (06) : 1241 - 1246
  • [38] Screw-Versus Cement-Retained Restorations for Provisionalization of Implants
    Ntounis, Athanasios
    Michael Nguyen
    Pelekanos, Stavros
    O'Neal, Sandra J.
    Liu, Perng-Ru
    CLINICAL ADVANCES IN PERIODONTICS, 2012, 2 (03): : 200 - 208
  • [39] Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: Which is better?
    Chee, W
    Felton, DA
    Johnson, PF
    Sullivan, DY
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 1999, 14 (01) : 137 - 141
  • [40] Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Prosthodontic Maintenance and Complications
    Ma, Sunyoung
    Fenton, Aaron
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2015, 28 (02) : 127 - 145