Axial displacement of the suprastructures at the conical implant — abutment interface

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The inconsistency of the congruence of the surface of the implant–abutment interface leads to the impaired communication of the implant shaft with the oral cavity, breakdown of the structure, including the implant, and changes in the occlusal relationships because of axial displacement.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate the degree of axial displacement of abutments made relative to implants and analogs. Specific tasks were as follows: (1) to make various abutments for implants with a conical connection obtained from MIS, (2) to study the value of axial displacement of abutments of each type relative to the implant with load modeling, and (3) to examine the value of the axial displacement of abutments of each type relative to the analog of the implant from the tightening force of the screw.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Axial displacements were tested using implants and analogs of MIS implants with conical joints. Original and non-original abutments were chosen as suprastructures. The original abutment was presented by CS-CPK62. Abutments for the conical connection C1 were made by milling, laser sintering, and casting according to burned models. The fastening of implant analogs and implants was made in a block of plaster of the 4th class. The study was conducted in a simulation complex we have developed, which creates a cyclic load within 30 kg. The study was divided into two stages. In the first stage, axial displacements on analogs from the force of screw tightening were examined. Abutments were attached with various forces: 7 Ncm (tightening force with a simple screwdriver), 15 Ncm, and 30 Ncm. After each screw tightening, vertical measurements were made with a micrometer. In the second stage, axial displacements on implants under load in the original simulation complex were assessed. The screw was tightened with a force of 30 Ncm, as recommended by the manufacturer, and load simulation was performed. Measurements were made both before and after the load simulation.

RESULTS: The original abutments and those made by milling showed the greatest deviation (0.056 mm and 0.066 mm, respectively), and abutments obtained by casting had deviations of 0.047 mm. The smallest deviation was found in the abutment made by laser sintering (0.032 mm). The values obtained in the second stage were as follows. Original abutments and abutments obtained by milling showed the smallest axial displacement when modeling the load (0.00167 mm each). Moreover, the abutments obtained by casting and laser melting showed significant displacements (0.007 mm and 0.004 mm, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: A pattern was revealed: the smoother the surface of the conical parts, the stronger the axial displacement on the analog implants in the range of 7–30 Ncm, whereas an uneven surface gives the smallest axial displacement, and fixation according to the protocol provided resistance to chewing loads on the implants in the original and milled abutments. The use of a platform with a conical system to create high-precision orthopedic structures has certain limitations because an error in the height of the restoration is created in laboratory conditions. The use of non-original suprastructures leads to the accumulation of errors. Thus, it is necessary to further evaluate conical systems from other manufacturers and improve the accuracy of restorations based on dental implants.

About the authors

Alexander V. Guskov

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlova

Email: guskov74@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9793-7654
SPIN-code: 3758-6378
ResearcherId: U-8174-2018

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Ryazan

Dmitry N. Mishin

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlova

Email: dimnar89@ya.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4966-9050
SPIN-code: 3959-9180
ResearcherId: AAR-2361-2021

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assistant

Russian Federation, Ryazan

Sergey I. Kalinovskiy

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlova

Email: kalinovskiysi@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6222-3053
SPIN-code: 2506-0080
ResearcherId: UE-2378-2019

MD

Russian Federation, Ryazan

Vyacheslav V. Ilyasov

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlova

Author for correspondence.
Email: ilyasov.vyacheslav2010@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5790-1844
SPIN-code: 8772-5590
ResearcherId: AAQ-3010-2021

MD

Russian Federation, Ryazan

References

  1. Mitin NE, Guiter OS. The application of the modified method for the production of replacement dentures to a patient with jaw desomorphine osteonecrosis. Science of the Young (Eruditio Juvenium). 2018;6(3):394–399. (In Russ). doi: 10.23888/HMJ201863394-399
  2. Zhusev AI, Remov AYu. Dental implantation. Criteria for success. Moscow: Tsentr dental’noy implantatsii; 2004. 223 p. (In Russ).
  3. Ivanov SYu, Bizyaev AF, Lomakin MV, Panin AM. Dental implantology: a textbook. Moscow: GOU VUNMTs MZ RF; 2000. 96 p. (In Russ).
  4. Uspenskaya IV, Yurina SV. Revisited the classifier of the main dental treatment-diagnostic activities and technologies. I.P. Pavlov Russian Medical Biological Herald. 2018;26(1):36–46. doi: 10.23888/PAVLOVJ201826136-46 (In Russ).
  5. Musheev IU, Olesova VN, Framovich OZ. Practical dental implantology: a guide. 2nd ed. Moscow: Locus Standi; 2008. 498 p. (In Russ).
  6. Lebedenko IYu, Kalivradzhiyan ES, editors. Orthopedic dentistry: textbook. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2011. 640 p. (In Russ).
  7. Akhmedova NA. Analysis of dentoalveolar disorders in patients with partial secondary adentities and patients without violation of dental integrity. Science of the Young (Eruditio Juvenium). 2018;6(3):347–353. (In Russ). doi: 10.23888/HMJ201863347-353
  8. Sasada Y, Cochran DL. Implant-Abutment Connections: A Review of Biologic Consequences and Peri-implantitis Implications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(6):1296–1307. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5732
  9. Liu Y, Wang J. Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;83:153–160. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.07.022
  10. Gherlone EF, Capparé P, Pasciuta R, et al. Evaluation of resistance against bacterial microleakage of a new conical implant-abutment connection versus conventional connections: an in vitro study. New Microbiol. 2016;39(1):49–56.
  11. Camós-Tena R, Escuin-Henar T, Torné-Duran S. Conical connection adjustment in prosthetic abutments obtained by different techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019;11(5):e408–e413. doi: 10.4317/jced.55592
  12. Caricasulo R, Malchiodi L, Ghensi P, et al. The influence of implant-abutment connection to peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(4):653–664. doi: 10.1111/cid.12620
  13. Lops D, Stocchero M, Motta Jones J, et al. Five Degree Internal Conical Connection and Marginal Bone Stability around Subcrestal Implants: A Retrospective Analysis. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(14):3123. doi: 10.3390/ma13143123
  14. Lauritano D, Moreo G, Lucchese A, et al. The Impact of Implant-Abutment Connection on Clinical Outcomes and Microbial Colonization: A Narrative Review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(5):1131. doi: 10.3390/ma13051131
  15. Ceruso FM, Barnaba P, Mazzoleni S, et al. Implant-abutment connections on single crowns: a systematic review. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017;10(4):349–353. doi: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.4.349
  16. Flanagan D, Phillips J, Connor M, et al. Hoop stress and the conical connection. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(1):37–44. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00180
  17. Kofron MD, Carstens M, Fu C, Wen HB. In vitro assessment of connection strength and stability of internal implant-abutment connections. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019;65:92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.007
  18. Candotto V, Gabrione F, Oberti L, et al. The role of implant-abutment connection in preventing bacterial leakage: a review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(3 Suppl. 1):129–134.
  19. Carnovale F, Patini R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, et al. Measurement of gap between abutment and fixture in dental conical connection implants. A focused ion beam SEM observation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020;25(4):e449–e454. doi: 10.4317/medoral.23281
  20. Hurson S. Implant/Abutment Biomechanics and Material Selection for Predictable Results. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018;39(6):440–444.
  21. Yao KT, Chen CS, Cheng CK, et al. Optimization of the Conical Angle Design in Conical Implant-Abutment Connections: A Pilot Study Based on the Finite Element Method. J Oral Implantol. 2018;44(1):26–35. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00149
  22. Pozzi A, Mura P. Immediate Loading of Conical Connection Implants: Up-to-2-Year Retrospective Clinical and Radiologic Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(1):142–152. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4061
  23. Mishra SK, Chowdhary R, Kumari S. Microleakage at the Different Implant Abutment Interface: A Systematic Review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):ZE10–ZE15. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/28951.10054
  24. Hsu PF, Yao KT, Kao HC, Hsu ML. Effects of Axial Loading on the Pull-out Force of Conical Connection Abutments in Ankylos Implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(4):788–794. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6016
  25. Schmitt CM, Nogueira-Filho G, Tenenbaum HC, et al. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(2):552–574. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34709
  26. State Standard 25307-82. System of tolerances and landings for conical connections. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo standartov; 2004. (In Russ).
  27. Karl M, Irastorza-Landa A. In Vitro Characterization of Original and Nonoriginal Implant Abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(6):1229–1239. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6921
  28. Berberi A, Maroun D, Kanj W, et al. Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant-abutment Interface. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(11):907–913. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1952
  29. Patent RUS №193021/ 24.04.2019. Mitin NE, Ilyasov VV, Mishin DN, et al. Ustroystvo dlya imitatsii i issledovaniya zhevatel’nogo davleniya na zubnyye ryady. Available from: https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU193021U1_20191010 (In Russ).
  30. Ilyasov VV, Mitin NЕ, Mishin DN, et al. Study of temporary fixation materials on single orthopedic structures by simulating chewing load. Structural Integrity and Life. Beograd, Serbia; 2020. P:165–169.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Titanium transgingival standard abutments.

Download (108KB)
3. Fig. 2. Abutments made by milling, with a conical interface for the MIS C1 implant.

Download (95KB)
4. Fig. 3. Abutments made by selective laser melting with a conical interface for the MIS C1 implant.

Download (113KB)
5. Fig. 4. Abutments made by casting according to burn-out models, with a conical interface for the MIS C1 implant.

Download (105KB)
6. Fig. 5. A block of class 4 gypsum (photos of two surfaces) with implants (locations are indicated by the letter И) and analogues (indicated by the letter А). The tops of the implants and analogues are exposed for access by a micrometer screw.

Download (111KB)
7. Fig. 6. Digital micrometer Inforce 06-11-44: 1 — micrometer heel; 2 — micrometer screw; 3 — LCD display for displaying the value; 4 — control buttons; 5 — micrometer screw stroke knob 2.

Download (62KB)
8. Fig. 7. A torque wrench (a) and a standard hex screwdriver (b) from the orthopedic kit of the MIS implantation system.

Download (44KB)
9. Fig. 8. Abutments obtained by milling, laser sintering (a), original and cast abutments (b) are installed in the gypsum block on analogues.

Download (136KB)
10. Fig. 9. Schematic representation of the 1st stage of the study, where the analogue and abutment on the right — with a weak tightening of the screw, on the left — with a strong.

Download (78KB)
11. Fig. 10. Simulation complex: 1 — housing; 2 — electric motor; 3 — gearbox; 4 — power supply; 5 — microcontroller; 6 — secondary shaft; 7 — crank; 8 — connecting rod; 9 — container with solution; 10 — temperature control unit; 11 — occludator (replaced with gypsum blocks and a mate); 12 — strain gauges.

Download (120KB)
12. Fig. 11. Plaster blocks with implants and abutments (a) and the mating parts (b) necessary to create a load on the abutments.

Download (106KB)
13. Fig.12. Schematic representation of the 2nd stage of the study: the implant and abutment on the right — before the load, on the left — after the load.

Download (129KB)

Copyright (c) 2022 Guskov A.V., Mishin D.N., Kalinovskiy S.I., Ilyasov V.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies