| Literature DB >> 28348591 |
Gardel Nepomuceno Costa1, Elizabeth Ferreira Martinez1, Aluísio Martins de Oliveira Ruellas1, Daiane Cristina Peruzzo1, Júlio Cesar Joly1, Marcelo Henrique Napimoga1.
Abstract
Considering the variety of implant connection systems available in the market and the contrasting literature regarding tapered connection systems in terms of bacterial leakage, the aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effectiveness of the bacterial seal at the implant/abutment interface between an external hexagon and a tapered connection system. Twelve sets of indexed tapered connection components and twelve sets of external hexagon connection components were used for microbiological analysis. In addition, for each model, an implant with its respective prosthetic abutment was used as a negative control and another as a positive control of microbial contamination. Failure of the abutment/implant interface seal was observed via turbidity or presence of deposits in the culture. Descriptive analysis of the data and relative frequency (percentage) as well as Fisher's exact test were used at a significance level of 5%. Two of ten (20%) external hexagon specimens showed contamination against 0/10 (0%) tapered connection implants. In conclusion, both implant/abutment connections were able to prevent bacterial leakage in vitro.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28348591 PMCID: PMC5350418 DOI: 10.1155/2017/3849085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Implants and abutments used.
|
| Batch |
| External hexagon Titaoss | 160100058 |
| Tapered implant connection | 150800066 |
|
| |
|
| |
| Mini abutment HE platform 4.1 | 150600143 |
| Abutment CMN 2.5 mm | 151200026 |
Figure 1Implants and irrespective prosthetic abutments. Titaoss max CMX (a), universal tapered abutment (b), Titaoss external hexagon (c), and mini abutment EH platform 4.1 (d).
Figure 2Contamination follow-up expressed as percentage over 14 days.