Premium
Cross‐sectional analysis of the implant–abutment interface
Author(s) -
COELHO A. L.,
SUZUKI M.,
DIBART S.,
DA SILVA N.,
COELHO P. G.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01714.x
Subject(s) - implant , abutment , materials science , radius , perpendicular , dental abutments , orthodontics , mathematics , geometry , structural engineering , medicine , computer science , engineering , surgery , computer security
summary The purpose of this study was to develop a technique to evaluate the implant–abutment gap of an external hexagon implant system as a function of radius. Six implants of 3·75 mm in diameter (Conexao Sistema de Protese Ltda, Sao Paulo, Brazil) and their respective abutments were screw connected and torqued to 20 N cm −1 . The implants were mounted in epoxy assuring an implant long‐axis position perpendicular to the vertical axis. Each implant was grounded through its thickness parallel to implant long‐axis at six different distance interval. Implant–abutment gap distances were recorded along the implant–abutment region for each section. Individual measurements were related to their radial position through trigonometric inferences. A sixth degree polynomial line fit approach determined radial adaptation patterns for each implant. Micrographs along implant sections showed a approximately 300 μ m length implant–abutment engagement region. All implants presented communication between external and internal regions through connection gaps and inaccurate implant–abutment alignment. Average gap distances were not significantly different between implants ( P > 0·086). Polynomial lines showed implant‐abutment gap values below 10 μ m from 0 μ m to approximately 250 μ m of the implant–abutment engagement region. Gap distances significantly increased from approximately 250 μ m to the outer radius of the implant–abutment engagement region. The technique described provided a broader scenario of the implant–abutment gap adaptation compared with previous work concerning implant–abutment gap determination, and should be considered for better understanding mechanical aspects or biological effects of implant–abutment adaptation on peri‐implant tissues.