Implant-Abutment Connections on Single Crowns: A Systematic Review

Abstract

349 haviour when exposed to forces different from the axial. This would have led to a micro-movement and a mechanical instability at the fixtureabutment connection. Internal connections were developed to eliminate or eventually decrease the micro-movement at the connection level. Various studies investigated the mechanical and clinical implications of different kind of connections assuming that different implant-abutment connections might have different resistance to displacement and stress dissipation under functional load. It seems clear that micro-movement at the implant-abutment interface would have increased inflammation at connection level contributing to a marginal bone loss (2). Authors assumed that it is necessary to improve the mechanical properties of the connections that are actually available and that there is still lack of strong evidence of which of them behaviour better than the others clinically. The aim of this ar-SUMMARY Different implant-abutment connections have been developed in the effort of reducing mechanical and biological failure. The most frequent complications are screw loosening, abutment or implant fracture and marginal bone loss due to overload and bacterial micro-leakage. Ideal connection should work as a one-piece implant avoiding the formation of a micro-gap at the implant-abutment interface. Different in vitro and in vivo researches have been published to compare the implant-abutment connections actually available: external hexagon, internal hexagon and conical finding different amount of micro-gap, micro-leakage and marginal bone loss. The aim of this article is to describe, according to the most recent literature, different kind of fixture-abutment connections and their clinical and mechanical advantages or disadvantages.

Prosthetic and Mechanical Parameters of the Facial Bone under the Load of Different Dental Implant Shapes: A Parametric Study

“…The external configuration has the highest stress value compared to the other two internal configurations. As reported by Ceruso et al [30], the external hexagonal connection presents micro-movement, especially under lateral load, with consequent micro-gap at the abutment-implant interface that can lead to micro-leakage and bacterial infiltration. In addition, the external solution is not able to allow a good redistribution of the stress on the implant.…”

The Impact of Implant–Abutment Connection on Clinical Outcomes and Microbial Colonization: A Narrative Review

“…Ceruso et al, pointed out that both conical and non-conical abutments provide enough resistance to maximal bending forces and fatigue loading. Still, conical abutments demonstrated superiority with regard to seal performance, micro-gap formation, torque maintenance, and abutment stability [22,23].…”

“…Finally, we can say that the conical implant connection system is more favorable insofar as the maintenance of the marginal bone is concerned [7,22,[26][27][28][29][30][31].…”

Retention and Clinical Performance of Zirconia Crowns: A Comprehensive Review

“…The treatment of edentulous spaces with an osseointegrated dental implant is a known treatment modality and scientifically accepted [ 1 ]. Every implant complex differs from the others for many features including materials, implant shape, roughness, spirals, geometry, and connection level [ 2 ]. Over years ago, research studies were performed on all these various characteristics to finding the most efficient, valuable, and safe implant complex in short- and long-term follow-up [ 2 ].…”