BACKGROUND: The implant-abutment connection (IAC) is known to be a key factor for the long-term stability of peri-implant tissue. PURPOSE: The aim of the present in vitro study was to detect and measure the mechanical behavior of different IACs by X-ray imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 different implant systems with various implant dimensions and IACs (13 conical-, 6 flat-, and 1 gable-like IAC) have been tested using a chewing device simulating dynamic and static loading up to 200 N. Micromovements have been recorded with a high-resolution, high-speed X-ray camera, and gap length and gap width between implant and abutment have been calculated. Furthermore, X-ray video sequences have been recorded to investigate the sealing capacity of different IACs. RESULTS: Out of the 20 implant systems, eight implant systems with a conical IAC showed no measurable gaps under static and dynamic loading (200 N). By contrast, all investigated implant systems with a flat IAC showed measurable gaps under dynamic and static loading. X-ray video sequences revealed that a representative conical IAC had sufficient sealing capacity. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present in vitro study, X-ray imaging showed reduced formation of microgaps and consecutive micromovements in implants with conical IAC compared to flat IACs.
BACKGROUND: The implant-abutment connection (IAC) is known to be a key factor for the long-term stability of peri-implant tissue. PURPOSE: The aim of the present in vitro study was to detect and measure the mechanical behavior of different IACs by X-ray imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 different implant systems with various implant dimensions and IACs (13 conical-, 6 flat-, and 1 gable-like IAC) have been tested using a chewing device simulating dynamic and static loading up to 200 N. Micromovements have been recorded with a high-resolution, high-speed X-ray camera, and gap length and gap width between implant and abutment have been calculated. Furthermore, X-ray video sequences have been recorded to investigate the sealing capacity of different IACs. RESULTS: Out of the 20 implant systems, eight implant systems with a conical IAC showed no measurable gaps under static and dynamic loading (200 N). By contrast, all investigated implant systems with a flat IAC showed measurable gaps under dynamic and static loading. X-ray video sequences revealed that a representative conical IAC had sufficient sealing capacity. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present in vitro study, X-ray imaging showed reduced formation of microgaps and consecutive micromovements in implants with conical IAC compared to flat IACs.