Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections

被引:102
|
作者
Piattelli, A
Scarano, A
Paolantonio, M
Assenza, B
Leghissa, GC
Di Bonaventura, G
Catamo, G
Piccolomini, R
机构
[1] Univ G dAnnunzio, Sch Dent, Chieti, Italy
[2] UCL Eastman Dent Inst Oral Hlth Care Sci, London, England
[3] Univ G dAnnunzio, Dept Biomed Sci, Clin Microbiol Lab, Chieti, Italy
关键词
comparison studies; dental implants/microbiology; dental cements/microbiology; dental abutments; screw-retained; cement-retained;
D O I
10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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 mu gap between implant and abutment, while in the CRA implants, the gap was 7 mu. 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 CPA 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.
引用
收藏
页码:1146 / 1150
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Clinical Comparison of Screw-Retained and Screwless Morse Taper Implant-Abutment Connections: One-Year Postloading Results
    Geckili, Esma
    Geckili, Onur
    Bilhan, Hakan
    Kutay, Omer
    Bilgin, Tayfun
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2017, 32 (05) : 1123 - 1131
  • [22] Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Implant Restorations: Current Concepts
    Lee, Angie
    Okayasu, Kozue
    Wang, Hom-Lay
    IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2010, 19 (01) : 8 - 15
  • [23] New abutment for a screw-retained, implant-supported crown
    Prisco, R
    Morgano, SM
    D'Amato, S
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2001, 85 (01): : 30 - 33
  • [24] A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns
    Torrado, E
    Ercoli, C
    Al Mardini, M
    Graser, GN
    Tallents, RH
    Cordaro, L
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2004, 91 (06): : 532 - 537
  • [25] Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido
    de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
    de Faria Almeida, Daniel Augusto
    Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
    Verri, Fellippo Ramos
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2016, 115 (04): : 419 - 427
  • [26] Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis
    Rajan, M
    Gunaseelan, R
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2004, 92 (06): : 578 - 580
  • [27] Evaluation of Prosthodontic Complications in Screw-Retained and Cement-Retained Crowns in Dental Implants: An Original Research
    Rajput, Mansi
    Kohli, Arshdeep S.
    Abdul, Hina N.
    Sandhu, Sunpreet K.
    Thakkar, Radhika
    Karre, Shivani
    JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND BIOALLIED SCIENCES, 2024, 16 : S609 - S612
  • [28] A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions
    Hamed, Mohamed Tharwat
    Mously, Hisham Abdullah
    Alamoudi, Saeed Khalid
    Hashem, Abou Bakr Hossam
    Naguib, Ghada Hussein
    CLINICAL COSMETIC AND INVESTIGATIONAL DENTISTRY, 2020, 12 : 9 - 16
  • [29] Acrylic resin guide for locating the abutment screw access channel of cement-retained implant prostheses
    Ahmed, Ayman
    Maroulakos, Georgios
    Garaicoa, Jorge
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2016, 115 (05): : 560 - 563
  • [30] A method for determining the position of the abutment screw of any cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis
    Figueras-Alvarez, Oscar
    Real-Voltas, Francisco
    Cabratosa-Termes, Josep
    Roig, Miguel
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2021, 125 (06): : 846 - 848