Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface

  • Karina Oliveira de Faria
  • Clébio Domingues da Silveira-Júnior
  • João Paulo da Silva-Neto
  • Maria da Glória Chiarello de Mattos
  • Marlete Ribeiro da Silva
  • Flávio Domingues das Neves

Abstract

Aim: To compare two main methods of two-dimensional measurement of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface, testing the hypothesis that optical microscopy (OM) can reliably and efficiently scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). Methods: Four frameworks with four titanium abutments joined with titanium bars were used. The implant-abutment interfaces were examined by three different methods, forming 3 groups: analysis by OM (40x), and analysis by SEM at 300x and 500x. Readings were taken at the mesial and distal proximal surfaces on the horizontal and vertical axes of each implant (n=32). One-way ANOVA with a significance level of 5% was used for statistical analysis. Results: Neither the horizontal fit nor vertical fit values of the 3 groups presented statistically significant differences (p=0.410 and p=0.543). Conclusions: OM was found to be an accurate two-dimensional method for abutment-framework or implant-abutment interface measurements, with lower costs than SEM. SEM micrographs at 500x presented technical difficulties for the readings that might produce different results.

References

1. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 506-15.
2. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 121-32.
3. Neves FD, Elias GA, Dantas LC, Silva-Neto JP, Mota AS, Fernandes- Neto AJ. Comparison of implant-abutment interface misfits after casting and soldering procedures. J Oral Implantol. 2012; Jan 15. [Epub ahead of print].
4. da Silveira-Junior CD, Neves FD, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Prado CJ, Simamoto-Júnior PC. Influence of different tightening forces before laser welding to the implant/framework fit. J Prosthodont. 2009; 18: 337-41.
5. Hecker DM, Eckert SE. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: changes in component fit over time. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 346-51.
6. Mendonça G, Mendonça DB, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Neves FD. Management of fractured dental implants: a case report. Implant Dent. 2009; 18: 10-6.
7. Hultin M, Komiyama A, Klinge B. Supportive therapy and the longevity of dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18(Suppl 3): 50-62.
8. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 620-5.
9. Barbosa GA, Bernardes SR, das Neves FD, Fernandes Neto AJ, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Relation between implant/abutment vertical misfit and torque loss of abutment screws. Braz Dent J. 2008; 19: 358-63.
10. Kano SC, Binon PP, Curtis DA. A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22: 879-85.
11. Costa HM, Rodrigues RC, Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Evaluation of the adaptation interface of one-piece implant-supported superstructures obtained in Ni-Cr-Ti and Pd-Ag alloys. Braz Dent J. 2003; 14: 197-202.
12. Koke U, Wolf A, Lenz P, Gilde H. In vitro investigation of marginal accuracy of implant-supported screw-retained partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31: 477-82.
13. Sartori IA, Ribeiro RF, Francischone CE, de Mattos Mda G. In vitro comparative analysis of the fit of gold alloy or commercially pure titanium implant-supported prostheses before and after electroerosion. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92: 132-8.
14. Eisenmann E, Mokabberi A, Walter MH, Freesmeyer WB. Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 810-8.
15. O’Mahony A, MacNeill SR, Cobb CM. Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: a retrospective analysis of failed implants. Quintessence Int. 2000; 31: 249-56.
16. Coelho AL, Suzuki M, Dibart S, DA Silva N, Coelho PG. Cross-sectional analysis of the implant-abutment interface. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34: 508-16.
Published
2016-12-12
How to Cite
DE FARIA, Karina Oliveira et al. Comparison of methods to evaluate implant-abutment interface. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. 37-40, dec. 2016. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/393>. Date accessed: 17 july 2019.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)