Review of the Mechanical Behavior of Different Implant–Abutment Connections

Ana Sofia Vinhas, Carlos Aroso, Filomena Salazar, Paula López-Jarana, José Vicente Ríos-Santos and Mariano Herrero-Climent
Additional contact information
Ana Sofia Vinhas: Department of Periodontology, Instituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
Carlos Aroso: Department of Prosthodontics, Instituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
Filomena Salazar: Department of Periodontology, Instituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
Paula López-Jarana: Department of Periodontology, Instituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
José Vicente Ríos-Santos: Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avicena S/N, 41009 Sevilla, Spain
Mariano Herrero-Climent: Porto Dental Institute, 4150-518 Porto, Portugal

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 22, 1-20

Abstract: Introduction: Different implant–abutment connections have been developed to reduce mechanical and biological failure. The most frequent complications are loss of preload, screw loosening, abutment or implant fracture, deformations at the different interfaces, and bacterial microleakage. Aim: To review the evidence indicating whether the implant–abutment connection type is significant regarding the following issues: (1) maintenance of the preload in static and dynamic in vitro studies; (2) assessment of possible deformations at the implant–abutment interfaces, after repeated application of the tightening torque; (3) evaluation of the sealing capability of different implant connections against microleakage. Materials and Methods: In June 2020, an electronic literature search was performed in Medline, EBSCO host, and PubMed databases. The search was focused on the ability of different implant connections to maintain preload, resist deformation after tightening and retightening, and prevent microleakage. The related titles and abstracts available in English were screened, and the articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for full-text reading. Results: The literature search conducted for this review initially resulted in 68 articles, among which 19 articles and 1 systematic review fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The studies were divided according to the three proposed objectives, with some studies falling into more than one category (maintenance of preload, surface abutment–implant deformation, and resistance to microleakage). Conclusions: Conical abutment appears to result in fewer mechanical complications, such as screw loosening or fractures, and higher torque preservation. After SEM evaluation, damage was observed in the threads of the abutment screws, before and after loading in internal and external connections. Internal hexagon implants and predominantly internal conical (Morse taper) implants showed less microleakage in dynamic loading conditions. We suggest further studies to guarantee excellence in methodological quality.

Keywords: implant–abutment connection; preload; tightening torque; cyclic loading; misfit; microleakage (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8685/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8685/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8685-:d:449534

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().