Sunil Kumar Mishra1, Ramesh Chowdhary2, Shail Kumari3. 1. Reader, Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Peoples College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. Professor, Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 3. Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Presence of gap at the implant-abutment interface, leads to microleakage and accumulation of bacteria which can affect the success of dental implants. AIM: To evaluate the sealing capability of different implant connections against microleakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In January 2017 an electronic search of literature was performed, in Medline, EBSCO host and Pubmed data base. The search was focused on ability of different implant connections in preventing 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: In this systematic review, literature search initially resulted in 78 articles among which 30 articles only fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and were finally included in the review. Almost all the studies showed that there was some amount of microleakage at abutment implant interface. Microleakage was very less in Morse taper implants in comparison to other implant connections. Majority of studies showed less microleakage in static loading conditions and microleakage increases in dynamic loading conditions. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review maximum studies showed that there was some amount of microleakage at abutment implant interface. External hexagon implants failed completely to prevent microleakage in both static and dynamic loading conditions of implants. Internal hexagon implants mainly internal conical (Morse taper) implants are very promising in case of static loading and also showed less microleakage in dynamic loading conditions. Torque recommended by manufacturer should be followed strictly to get a better seal at abutment implant interface. Zirconia abutments are more to microleakage than Titanium abutments and there use should be discouraged. Zirconia abutments should be only restricted to cases where there was very high demand of aesthetics.
INTRODUCTION: Presence of gap at the implant-abutment interface, leads to microleakage and accumulation of bacteria which can affect the success of dental implants. AIM: To evaluate the sealing capability of different implant connections against microleakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In January 2017 an electronic search of literature was performed, in Medline, EBSCO host and Pubmed data base. The search was focused on ability of different implant connections in preventing 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: In this systematic review, literature search initially resulted in 78 articles among which 30 articles only fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and were finally included in the review. Almost all the studies showed that there was some amount of microleakage at abutment implant interface. Microleakage was very less in Morse taper implants in comparison to other implant connections. Majority of studies showed less microleakage in static loading conditions and microleakage increases in dynamic loading conditions. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review maximum studies showed that there was some amount of microleakage at abutment implant interface. External hexagon implants failed completely to prevent microleakage in both static and dynamic loading conditions of implants. Internal hexagon implants mainly internal conical (Morse taper) implants are very promising in case of static loading and also showed less microleakage in dynamic loading conditions. Torque recommended by manufacturer should be followed strictly to get a better seal at abutment implant interface. Zirconia abutments are more to microleakage than Titanium abutments and there use should be discouraged. Zirconia abutments should be only restricted to cases where there was very high demand of aesthetics.
Authors: Mohamed I Abdelhamed; Jeffrey D Galley; Michael T Bailey; William M Johnston; Julie Holloway; Edwin McGlumphy; Binnaz Leblebicioglu Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Roland Glauser; Irena Sailer; Arnold Wohlwend; Stephan Studer; Monica Schibli; Peter Schärer Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.681
Authors: Pedro Molinero-Mourelle; Rocio Cascos-Sanchez; Burak Yilmaz; Walter Yu Hang Lam; Edmond Ho Nang Pow; Jaime Del Río Highsmith; Miguel Gómez-Polo Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Rafał Pokrowiecki; Urszula Szałaj; Damian Fudala; Tomasz Zaręba; Jacek Wojnarowicz; Witold Łojkowski; Stefan Tyski; Krzysztof Dowgierd; Agnieszka Mielczarek Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2022-04-12
Authors: Ana Sofia Vinhas; Carlos Aroso; Filomena Salazar; Paula López-Jarana; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ana I Nicolas-Silvente; Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Ivan Ortiz-Garcia; Alvaro Jimenez-Guerra; Loreto Monsalve-Guil; Raul Ayuso-Montero; Javier Gil; Jose Lopez-Lopez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 3.390