The Bacterial Sealing Capacity of Morse Taper Implant–Abutment Systems in Vitro

Ranieri, R; Ferreira, Andréia Costa Ferreira; Albuquerque‐Souza, Emmanuel; Arcoverde, Joao; Dametto, Fábio Roberto; Gadê-Neto, Cícero Romão; Seabra, Flávio Roberto Guerra; Sarmento, Carlos Frederico de Moraes

doi:10.1902/jop.2015.140623

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of in vitro studies evaluating the risk for bacterial penetration into the implant‐abutment interface have not utilized loading conditions (Figure ) . The major drawback to studies that do not incorporate a loading protocol is the failure to assess bacterial transfer in and out of the implant‐abutment interface.…”

Section: The Bacterial Infiltrate In the Implant‐abutment Connectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant‐abutment connection as contributing factor to peri‐implant diseases

Koutouzis

2019

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implant-supported prostheses are an established treatment modality for the functional and esthetic rehabilitation of partial and/ or complete edentulous patients. One of the most essential factors for successful treatment outcomes stems from preservation of the peri-implant bone. The quantity and quality of the bone surrounding an implant not only affects implant osseointegration but also influences the shape and contour of the overlying soft tissue, both of which are important for the esthetic outcome of treatment.Crestal bone loss during the first year of function has been a common observation 1,2 and coincides with the time period where most treatment manipulations occur. The complexity of each case determines the extent of those treatment manipulations. Aside from and subsequent to implant installation, manipulations such as hard and soft tissue grafting, second-stage surgery for implant exposure, healing abutment connections/disconnections, fabrication of implant-supported provisional restoration, insertion and reshaping, impressions and prosthesis insertion will most likely occur. The amount of crestal bone loss that is acceptable during the first year and thereafter has been a matter of debate over the years. 3,4 There is an identifiable distinction between initial bone loss as just described and bone loss secondary to peri-implant infections, namely peri-implant mucositis and subsequently peri-implantitis. 5 Several associating factors have been identified that contribute to peri-implant bone loss. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The inflammatory reaction of peri-implant tissues as a result of bacterial colonization on implant surfaces has been one of the most extensively studied associating factors. 13,14 Early bacterial colonization of implant surfaces and peri-implant tissues can occur within minutes after implant placement. 15 When a transmucosal prosthetic abutment is connected to a dental implant, a microgap is established between the components. Microorganisms may colonize the implant-abutment interface microgap 16,17 and establish a bacterial reservoir, resulting in an area of inflamed soft tissue facing the implant-abutment junction. 18 The presence of an implant-abutment interface microgap in close relation to bone may have a role in the development of peri-implant inflammation and bone loss. 19-23 Prevention of microbial leakage at the implant-abutment interface is a major challenge in the construction of two-piece implant systems. Prevention of microbial leakage minimizes inflammatory reactions and subsequently maximizes peri-implant crestal bone stability. | CURRENT T YPE S OF IMPL ANT-ABUTMENT CONNEC TI ON SImplant-abutment connections can be classified based on several features. Taking into account that implant manufacturers along with implant designs are constantly increasing over time, variations of implant-abutment designs are also increasing. 24 Several manufacturers adopt design features with minor or major variations; thus, it is common to have overlaps in implant-abutment design char...

show abstract

Section: The Bacterial Infiltrate In the Implant‐abutment Connectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant‐abutment connection as contributing factor to peri‐implant diseases

Koutouzis

2019

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With bacteria generally having a size of 0.2 μm in diameter and 1‐8 μm in length, this means that microbial penetration through this space is inevitable. Overall geometry of the fixture‐abutment interface affects the risk of bacterial invasion into the internal part of the implant, even when using Morse taper . Consequently, other methods to prevent pathogenic microorganism colonization and posterior biofilm formation are required in an attempt to avoid peri‐implantitis initiation.…”

Section: Current Biomaterial‐based Solutions To Prevent Peri‐implantitismentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomaterial‐based possibilities for managing peri‐implantitis

Ávila

Oirschot

Beucken

2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri‐implantitis is an inflammatory disease of hard and soft tissues around osseointegrated implants, followed by a progressive damage of alveolar bone. Oral microorganisms can adhere to all types of surfaces by the production of multiple adhesive factors. Inherent properties of materials will influence not only the number of microorganisms, but also their profile and adhesion force onto the material surface. In this perspective, strategies to reduce the adhesion of pathogenic microorganisms on dental implants and their components should be investigated in modern rehabilitation concepts in implant dentistry. To date, several metallic nanoparticle films have been developed to reduce the growth of pathogenic bacteria. However, the main drawback in these approaches is the potential toxicity and accumulative effect of the metals over time. In view of biological issues and in attempt to prevent and/or treat peri‐implantitis, biomaterials as carriers of antimicrobial substances have attracted special attention for application as coatings on dental implant devices. This review will focus on biomaterial‐based possibilities to prevent and/or treat peri‐implantitis by describing concepts and dental implant components suitable for engagement in preventing and treating this disease. Additionally, we raise important criteria referring to the geometric parameters of dental implants and their components, which can directly affect peri‐implant tissue conditions. Finally, we overview currently available biomaterial systems that can be used in the field of oral implantology.

show abstract

“…A conexão tipo hexagonal é mais suscetível à contaminação do que as conexões tipo interna cônica, o que corrobora com o estudo de Hermann et al (2001). A conexão interna cônica demonstrou melhores resultados, alguns autores também demonstraram estes resultados mesmo alternando intermediários (KING et al, 2002;DECONTO et al, 2010;RANIERI et al, 2015).…”

Section: Ensaiounclassified

“…Vários autores concluíram que o desenho geométrico de uma conexão cônica não é capaz de vedar a interface entre as partes, mas pode diminuir ou ainda evitar a micromovimentação dos componentes protéticos, pelo travamento por fricção que acontece entre as partes já no interior dos implantes (CEHRELI et al, 2004;MERZ et al, 2000;SQUIER;PSOTER;TAYLOR, 2002) (DIBART et al, 2005;PAPPALARDO et al, 2007;GARRANA et al, 2016;(TESMER et al, 2009;STEINEBRUNNER et al, 2005;SUTTER, 1993;CHAPMAN;GRIPPO, 1996;D'ERCOLE et al, 2015) e que este íntimo contato e atrito entre as partes são provenientes de diferenças entre os ângulos das estruturas, fornecendo um contato íntimo melhor e com mais atrito (DIBART et al, 2005;RANIERI et al, 2015). Muitos outros autores, concluem que mesmo com tal adaptação entre as partes ainda assim haverá contaminação das conexões cônicas (SANTANA, 2007;FARIA, 2008;FREITAS, 2009;HARDER et al, 2010;DO NASCIMENTO et al, 2012;TRIPODI et al, 2012;MARTIN-GILI et al, 2015;DA SILVA-NETO, 2017) (PAPPALARDO et al, 2007;GARRANA et al, 2016).…”

Section: Ensaiounclassified

“…Em momento algum passou pelo planejamento deste trabalho dar um torque maior ou menor na tentativa de reduzir os possíveis microgaps existentes, assim como sugere (SASADA; COCHRAN, 2017), e sim em manter o torque recomendado pelos fabricantes, assim como também descrevem (NEVES et al, 2010a;NEVES et al, 2010b;. Gross et al, (1999) BAGGI et al, 2013;RANIERI et al, 2015 tiverem microgaps menores do que 0,5µm de diâmetro, talvez a nossa escolha bacteriana não tenha sido apropriada, com médias de 0,5µm do Enterococcus faecalis, mas que na cavidade oral podemos encontrar espiroquetas, cujo tamanho médio que pode ser em torno de 0,1 a 0,5 µm (JANSEN et al, 1997).…”

Section: Ensaiounclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Análise microbiológica da vedação com selante industrial de <i>microgaps</i> nas diferentes conexões implantares: estudo <i>in vitro</i>

Tunes¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tunes FSM. " Microbiological analysis of the seal with industrial sealant on the microgaps in the different implant connections: in vitro study" [Thesis]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia; 2018. Original version. The use of dental implants and prosthetic components have become very feasible resources to solve simple and complex cases in rehabilitation dentistry. However, the implant component junction may present problems, such as the presence of a microgap between these components parts.Therefore, several materials have been tested in an attempt to obstruct this space, with controversial results. The objective of this study was to evaluate in vitro the behavior of an anaerobic monocomponent adhesive (Loctite® 510, Henkel Ltda), high resistance and inert characteristics, in the microgap seal preventing bacterial passage from the external side to the inner side of the assembly. A total of 90 implants were used, with hexagonal external connection (n = 30), internal hexagonal connection (n = 30) and internal conical connection (n = 30) divided into Control Group (n = 45). Implants were opened in laminar flow cabinet and each unit received 3µl of sterile BHI internally. On each unit a specific prosthetic component was screwed in for each brand and with torques recommended by the manufacturers with digital torque wrench. The sets of Test also received a thin layer of adhesive that was applied with microbrush between the parts; and all units of the Control and Test groups were sealed with provisional obturator material in their most coronal portion. Each set was immersed in 75 µl of Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC-29212) in mini-tubes to the limit between the implant / prosthetic component junction. All samples were incubated in a bacteriological incubator for 7, 14 and 28 days at 37 o C before being reopened. After the proposed period, the internal contents of the implants were collected with sterile paper cones, diluted and seeded in Petri dishes, incubated for 48 hours. There was a significant difference between the test and control groups in the hexagonal external connection group at all times (Fischer and Chi-square test, p ≤ 0.05). The anaerobic adhesive tested works as a barrier, not allowing the migration of bacteria into the internal environment of the implant / prosthetic component assembly.

show abstract

The Bacterial Sealing Capacity of Morse Taper Implant–Abutment Systems in Vitro

Abstract: The seals provided by the interfaces of the commercially available Morse taper implant-abutment units tested were not sufficiently small to shield the implant from bacterial penetration.

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

Implant‐abutment connection as contributing factor to peri‐implant diseases

Implant‐abutment connection as contributing factor to peri‐implant diseases

Biomaterial‐based possibilities for managing peri‐implantitis

Análise microbiológica da vedação com selante industrial de <i>microgaps</i> nas diferentes conexões implantares: estudo <i>in vitro</i>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About