BACKGROUND: It has been recently observed that in implants with screw-retained abutments, in in vitro as well as in vivo conditions, bacteria can penetrate inside the internal cavity of the implant as a consequence of leakage at the implant-abutment interface. An alternative to screw-retained abutments is represented by implants that can receive cemented abutments. In this case, the abutment goes through a transmucosal friction implant extension (collar) and is cemented inside the internal hexagonal portion of the implant. The aim of the present research was to compare fluids and bacterial penetration in 2 different implant systems, one with cement-retained abutments (CRA) and the other with screw-retained abutments (SRA). METHODS: Twelve CRA dental implants and 12 SRA implants were used in this study. The research was done in 3 steps: scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis, fluid penetration analysis, and bacterial penetration analysis. RESULTS: 1) Under SEM it was possible to observe in the SRA implants a mean 2 to 7 micron gap between implant and abutment, while in the CRA implants, the gap was 7 micron. In the latter group, however, the gap was always completely filled by the fixation cement. All the spaces between abutment and implant were filled by the cement. 2) With SRA implants, it was possible to observe the presence of toluidine blue at the level of the fixture-abutment interface and the internal threads; the absorbent paper was stained in all cases. With CRA implants, the absorbent paper inside the hollow portion of the implants was never stained by toluidine blue. No penetration of toluidine blue was observed at the implant-abutment interface and inside the hollow portion of the implants. 3) In all the SRA implant assemblies, bacterial penetration was observed at the implant-abutment interface. No bacteria were detected in the hollow portion of the CRA implants. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results obtained in the present study using 2 different implant systems, we conclude that CRA implants offer better results relating to fluid and bacterial permeability compared to SRA implants.
BACKGROUND: It has been recently observed that in implants with screw-retained abutments, in in vitro as well as in vivo conditions, bacteria can penetrate inside the internal cavity of the implant as a consequence of leakage at the implant-abutment interface. An alternative to screw-retained abutments is represented by implants that can receive cemented abutments. In this case, the abutment goes through a transmucosal friction implant extension (collar) and is cemented inside the internal hexagonal portion of the implant. The aim of the present research was to compare fluids and bacterial penetration in 2 different implant systems, one with cement-retained abutments (CRA) and the other with screw-retained abutments (SRA). METHODS: Twelve CRA dental implants and 12 SRA implants were used in this study. The research was done in 3 steps: scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis, fluid penetration analysis, and bacterial penetration analysis. RESULTS: 1) Under SEM it was possible to observe in the SRA implants a mean 2 to 7 micron gap between implant and abutment, while in the CRA implants, the gap was 7 micron. In the latter group, however, the gap was always completely filled by the fixation cement. All the spaces between abutment and implant were filled by the cement. 2) With SRA implants, it was possible to observe the presence of toluidine blue at the level of the fixture-abutment interface and the internal threads; the absorbent paper was stained in all cases. With CRA implants, the absorbent paper inside the hollow portion of the implants was never stained by toluidine blue. No penetration of toluidine blue was observed at the implant-abutment interface and inside the hollow portion of the implants. 3) In all the SRA implant assemblies, bacterial penetration was observed at the implant-abutment interface. No bacteria were detected in the hollow portion of the CRA implants. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results obtained in the present study using 2 different implant systems, we conclude that CRA implants offer better results relating to fluid and bacterial permeability compared to SRA implants.
Authors: João Paulo da Silva-Neto; Marcel Santana Prudente; Thiago de Almeida Prado Naves Carneiro; Mauro Antônio de Arruda Nóbilo; Mario Paulo Amante Penatti; Flávio Domingues das Neves Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.698
Authors: Patricia A Lopes; Adriana F P Carreiro; Rubens M Nascimento; Brendan R Vahey; Bruno Henriques; Júlio C M Souza Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2018 Jan-Mar
Authors: José Rosas; Frank Mayta-Tovalino; Maria Eugenia Guerrero; Pedro Luis Tinedo-López; Claudia Delgado; Vanessa Z Ccahuana-Vasquez Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2019-09-02