Review of the Mechanical Behavior of Different Implant–Abutment Connections
<i>Introduction:</i> Different implant–abutment connections have been developed to reduce mechanical and biological failure. The most frequent complications are loss of preload, screw loosening, abutment or implant fracture, deformations at the different interfaces, and bacterial microle...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-11-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8685 |
| Summary: | <i>Introduction:</i> Different implant–abutment connections have been developed to reduce mechanical and biological failure. The most frequent complications are loss of preload, screw loosening, abutment or implant fracture, deformations at the different interfaces, and bacterial microleakage. Aim: To review the evidence indicating whether the implant–abutment connection type is significant regarding the following issues: (1) maintenance of the preload in static and dynamic in vitro studies; (2) assessment of possible deformations at the implant–abutment interfaces, after repeated application of the tightening torque; (3) evaluation of the sealing capability of different implant connections against microleakage. <i>Materials and Methods:</i> In June 2020, an electronic literature search was performed in Medline, EBSCO host, and PubMed databases. The search was focused on the ability of different implant connections to maintain preload, resist deformation after tightening and retightening, and prevent 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. <i>Results:</i> The literature search conducted for this review initially resulted in 68 articles, among which 19 articles and 1 systematic review fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The studies were divided according to the three proposed objectives, with some studies falling into more than one category (maintenance of preload, surface abutment–implant deformation, and resistance to microleakage). <i>Conclusions:</i> Conical abutment appears to result in fewer mechanical complications, such as screw loosening or fractures, and higher torque preservation. After SEM evaluation, damage was observed in the threads of the abutment screws, before and after loading in internal and external connections. Internal hexagon implants and predominantly internal conical (Morse taper) implants showed less microleakage in dynamic loading conditions. We suggest further studies to guarantee excellence in methodological quality. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1661-7827 1660-4601 |