Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Dec 2012

Evaluation of Microgap Size and Microbial Leakage in the Connection Area of 4 Abutments With Straumann (ITI) Implant

,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 677 – 685
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00167
Save
Download PDF

A microgap between implant and abutment can lead to mechanical and biological problems such as abutment screw fracture and peri-implantitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate microgap size and microbial leakage in the connection area of 4 different abutments to ITI implants. In this experimental study, 36 abutments in 4 groups (including Cast On, Castable, Solid, and Synocta abutments) connected to Straumann fixtures (with their inner part inoculated with bacterial suspension) and microbial leakage were assessed at different times. The size of the microgap in 4 randomized locations was then measured by scanning electron microscope. The data were analyzed by SPSS software and by 1-way variance statistical test, Kruskal-Wallis, and their supplementary tests (Mann-Whitney HSD and Tukey's; α = .05) at the next step. The effect of using different types of abutments was significant on the mean microgap size (P < .001) and on the mean number of leaked colonies (CFU/mL) through the connection area of the implant and abutment within the first 5 hours of the experiment (P = .012); however, it did not significantly influence microleakage at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 14 days (P = .145). Using Synocta abutments compared with Solid abutments will not provide us with more accommodation, and vice versa. Using Solid and Synocta abutments can significantly decrease the microgap size; however, Cast On abutments do not show a significant difference in terms of microgap compared with Castable abutments. Microleakage in the connection area is comparable for these 4 abutments.

Copyright: 2012
<bold>
  <sc>Figures 1–5</sc>
</bold>
.
Figures 1–5 .

Figure 1. Solid, Synocta, Cast On, and Castable abutments. Figure 2. Cast On and Castable abutments connected to cylinders. Figure 3. Inoculation of 0.5 μL of bacterial suspensions into implant. Figure 4. Abutment in TSB culture. Figure 5. Colony growth on blood agar culture.


<bold>
  <sc>Figure 6</sc>
</bold>
.
Figure 6 .

Scanning electron microscope images of the contact area between implants and abutments. (a) Synocta abutment-ITI implant contact area. (b) Solid abutment-ITI implant contact area. (c) Cast On abutment-ITI implant contact area. (d) Castable abutment-ITI implant contact area.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 7 and 8.</sc>
</bold>
Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. A comparison between the mean microgaps of abutments and ITI implants. Figure 8. The mean number of leaked colonies in 4 groups during the study.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: rismanchian@dnt.mui.ac.ir
  • Download PDF