J Adv Prosthodont.  2014 Apr;6(2):126-132. 10.4047/jap.2014.6.2.126.

Influence of the implant-abutment connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability

• Shin HM
• Huh JB
• Yun MJ
• Jeon YC
• Chang BM
• Jeong CM

• KMID: 2233341
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.2.126

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the implant-abutment connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Regular and wide-diameter implant systems with three different joint connection designs: an external butt joint, a one-stage internal cone, and a two-stage internal cone were divided into seven groups (n=5, in each group). The initial removal torque values of the abutment screw were measured with a digital torque gauge. The postload removal torque values were measured after 100,000 cycles of a 150 N and a 10 Hz cyclic load had been applied. Subsequently, the rates of the initial and postload removal torque losses were calculated to evaluate the effect of the joint connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability. Each group was compared using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test as post-hoc test (alpha=0.05).
RESULTS
The postload removal torque value was high in the following order with regard to magnitude: two-stage internal cone, one-stage internal cone, and external butt joint systems. In the regular-diameter group, the external butt joint and one-stage internal cone systems showed lower postload removal torque loss rates than the two-stage internal cone system. In the wide-diameter group, the external butt joint system showed a lower loss rate than the one-stage internal cone and two-stage internal cone systems. In the two-stage internal cone system, the wide-diameter group showed a significantly lower loss rate than the regular-diameter group (P<.05).
CONCLUSION
The results of this study showed that the external butt joint was more advantageous than the internal cone in terms of the postload removal torque loss. For the difference in the implant diameter, a wide diameter was more advantageous in terms of the torque loss rate.

Keyword

Postload removal torque value; External butt joint connection; Internal connection; Platform switching

MeSH Terms

Joints*
Torque

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Sectional views of the implant fixture, abutment, and abutment screw assemblies. More detail features was in Table 1 and Table 2.

• 

  Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of testing conditions.

Reference

1. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994; 9:179–183.

2. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Gröndahl K. 3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brånemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1990; 10:340–349.

3. Misch CE, Wang HL, Misch CM, Sharawy M, Lemons J, Judy KW. Rationale for the application of immediate load in implant dentistry: Part I. Implant Dent. 2004; 13:207–217.

4. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989; 4:241–247.

5. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Sadler JP, McKay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 74:270–278.

6. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Solnit G. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: results of loading for 2 or more years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:516–520.

7. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Saunders SL. A multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: preliminary results at 6 or more months of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12:237–242.

8. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:137–141.

9. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:519–526.

10. Friberg B, Sennerby L, Linden B, Gröndahl K, Lekholm U. Stability measurements of one-stage Brånemark implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical resonance frequency analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 28:266–272.

11. Wilson TG, Kornman KS. Fundamentals of periodontics. Chicago: Quintessence;2003. p. 582.

12. Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt A, Dahlén G, Lindhe J. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Brånemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7:90–95.

13. Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Iezzi G, Leghissa GC, Quaranta A, Tortora P, Piattelli A. A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments. J Oral Implantol. 2005; 31:269–275.

14. King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 2002; 73:1111–1117.

15. Dibart S, Warbington M, Su MF, Skobe Z. In vitro evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: the locking taper system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20:732–737.

16. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Carinci F. Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants: a retrospective study of 510 implants. J Periodontol. 2008; 79:49–54.

17. Langer B, Langer L, Herrmann I, Jorneus L. The wide fixture: a solution for special bone situations and a rescue for the compromised implant. Part 1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993; 8:400–408.

18. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006; 26:9–17.

19. Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF. A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:299–308.

20. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991; 2:81–90.

21. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7:212–219.

22. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71:546–549.

23. Hobkirk JA, Schwab J. Mandibular deformation in subjects with osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6:319–328.

24. Winkler S, Ring K, Ring JD, Boberick KG. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: overview. J Oral Implantol. 2003; 29:242–245.

25. Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol. 2002; 28:67–73.

26. Cantwell A, Hobkirk JA. Preload loss in gold prosthesis-retaining screws as a function of time. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:124–132.

27. Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA. Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71:592–599.

28. Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11:156–158.

29. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:76–94.

30. Sakaguchi RL, Borgersen SE. Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995; 10:295–302.

31. Choi JU, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Lim JS, Jeong HC, Eom TG. Influence of tungsten carbide/carbon coating on the preload of implant abutment screws. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2006; 44:229–242.

32. Shin HM, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Yun MJ, Yoon JH. Influence of tightening torque on implant-abutment screw joint stability. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008; 46:396–408.

33. Park JK, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Yoon JH. Influence of tungsten carbide/carbon coating of implant-abutment screw on screw loosening. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008; 46:137–147.

34. Hoyer SA, Stanford CM, Buranadham S, Fridrich T, Wagner J, Gratton D. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface: joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85:599–607.

35. Gratton DG, Aquilino SA, Stanford CM. Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85:47–52.

36. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:581–584.