Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Leakage in Implant Recess of Three Different Internal Implant Abutment Connections: An In Vitro Study

Shefali Singla, Sharique Rehan, Manjula Mehta, Sharmila Dhanday

Keywords : Bacterial infiltration, Dental implants, Implant abutment connection, Implant recess, Internal hex, Microbial leakage

Citation Information : Singla S, Rehan S, Mehta M, Dhanday S. Comparative Analysis of Microbial Leakage in Implant Recess of Three Different Internal Implant Abutment Connections: An In Vitro Study. 2023; 11 (3):102-105.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0023

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Objective/Introduction: Bacterial infiltration at implant abutment junction is a potential risk for soft tissue inflammation and bone loss around the implant. Potential colonization of microgap is related to precision of fit at the mating interfaces of implant and abutment and is dependent on structural geometry of implant abutment connection. Considering the limited information regarding differences in microbial penetration at the junction in implants with degree of taper in internal connections, this study conducted comparative analysis of microbial seal of three different implant abutment connections—1.5 mm internal hex (IH), 4° tapered, and 11° conical hex (CH) implants. Materials and methods: Three study groups with 18 implant abutment assemblies in each, included 1.5 mm IH (BioHorizon®), 4° taper (4° CH) internal conical connection (Ankylos®), and 11° taper (11°CH) connection (Neobiotech® Active) implants. Each assembly was suspended in Escherichia coli as well as Enterococcus faecalis suspension in brain heart infusion (BHI) separately and incubated at 37°C for 3 days. Wash from respective implant internal recess was assessed for microbial contamination. Results: Internal hex group showed significantly higher E. coli (44.4%) and E. faecalis (50.0%) leakage than 4°CH and 11°CH groups. The difference in microbial leakage in 4°CH (11.1%) and 11°CH (16.7%) for both the study microbes was statistically insignificant (p = 0.630), thus partially accepting the null hypothesis. Conclusion: The type of connection significantly influences microbial leakage at implant abutment junction with internal connection more conducive to bacterial infiltrations than conical connection implants. However, degree of taper of conical connection does not have a significant effect on bacterial permeability of the implant abutment connection.

  1. Amjadi M, Khajavi A, Youssefi N, et al. The effect of dynamic loading on bacterial microleakage of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21(4):420. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_96_21.
  2. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, et al. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:255–261. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00143.x.
  3. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, et al. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. J Periodontol 2001;72: 1146–1150. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146.
  4. Binon P, Weir D, Watanabe L, et al. In Laney WR: Implant component compatibility. Tissue Integration in Oral, Orthopaedic and Maxillofacial Reconstruction. Chicago: Quintessence; 1993, pp. 218–226.
  5. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant- abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1997;12(4):527–540.
  6. Callan DP, O'Mahony A, Cobb CM. Loss of crestal bone around dental implants: A retrospective study. Implant Dent 1998;7:258–266. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-199807040-00003.
  7. Larrucea V, Jaramillo N, Acevedo A, et al. Microleakage of the prosthetic abutment/implant interface with internal and external connection: In vitro study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2014;25:1078–1083. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12217.
  8. Assenza B, Tripodi D, Scarano A, et al. Bacterial leakage in implants with different implant–abutment connections: An in vitro study. J Periodontol 2012;83:491–497.
  9. Aloise JP, Curcio R, Laporta MZ, et al. Microbial leakage through the implant–abutment interface of Morse taper implants in vitro. Clin Oral Implant Res 2010;21:328–335. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01837.x.
  10. Tesmer M, Wallet S, Koutouzis T, et al. Bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture–abutment interface: An in vitro study. J Periodontol 2009;80:1991–1997. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.090178.
  11. Schmitt CM, Nogueira-Filho G, Tenenbaum HC, et al. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: A systematic review. J Biomed Material Res A 2014;102:552–574. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34709.
  12. Romanos GE, Biltucci MT, Kokaras A, et al. Bacterial composition at the implant-abutment connection under loading in vivo. Clin Implant Dentistry Related Res 2016;18:138–145. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12270.
  13. Dibart S, Warbington M, Su MF, et al. In vitro evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: The locking taper system. Inter J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;1:20.
  14. Koutouzis T, Wallet S, Calderon N, et al. Bacterial colonization of the implant–abutment interface using an in vitro dynamic loading model. J Periodontol 2011;82:613–618. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100415.
  15. Macedo JP, Pereira J, Vahey BR, et al. Morse taper dental implants and platform switching: The new paradigm in oral implantology. Eur J Dent 2016;10:148–154. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175677.
  16. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Bößmann K, et al. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20(6): 875–881.
  17. Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt Å, et al. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Brånemark system® implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7(2):90–95. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070201.x.
  18. Coelho PG, Sudack P, Suzuki M, et al. In vitro evaluation of the implant abutment connection sealing capability of different implant systems. J Oral Rehabilitation 2008;35(12):917–924. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01886.x.
  19. Augthun M, Conrads G. Microbial findings of deep peri-implant bone defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 1997;12(1):106–112.
  20. Salcetti JM, Moriarty JD, Cooper LF, et al. The clinical, microbial, and host response characteristics of the failing implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(1):32–42.
  21. Larrucea Verdugo C, Jaramillo Núñez G, Acevedo Avila A, et al. Microleakage of the prosthetic abutment/implant interface with internal and external connection: In vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1078–1083. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12217.
  22. Tripodi D, Vantaggiato G, Scarano A, et al. An in vitro investigation concerning the bacterial leakage at implants with internal hexagon and Morse taper implant-abutment connections. Implant Dent 2012;21:335–339. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31825cd472.
  23. Raab P, Alamanos C, Hahnel S, et al. Dental materials and their performance for the management of screw access channels in implant-supported restorations. Dent Mater J 2017;36(2):123–128. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-049.
  24. Callan DP, Cobb CM, Williams KB. DNA probe identification of bacteria colonizing internal surfaces of the implant-abutment interface: A preliminary study. J Periodontol 2005;7:115–120. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.1.115.
  25. D'Ercole S, Scarano A, Perrotti V, et al. Implants with internal hexagon and conical implant-abutment connections: An in vitro study of the bacterial contamination. J Oral Implantol 2014;40(1):30–34. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00121.
  26. Gherlone EF, Capparé P, Pasciuta R, et al. Evaluation of resistance against bacterial microleakage of a new conical implant-abutment connection versus conventional connections: An in vitro study. New Microbiol 2016;39(1):49–56.
  27. Khajavi A, Mohseni S, Peymani A, et al. In vitro bacterial leakage at the implant-abutment connection of two dental implant systems with internal connection. Front Dent 2020;17:32. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v17i32.5196.
  28. Deconto MA, Salvoni AD, Wassall T. In vitro microbiological bacterial seal analysis of the implant/abutment connection in morse taper implants: A comparative study between 2 abutments. Implant Dent 2010;19(2):158–166. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181cc48b1.
  29. Alves DC, Carvalho PS, Martinez EF. In vitro microbiological analysis of bacterial seal at the implant-abutment interface using two morse taper implant models. Braz Dent J 2014;25:48–53. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302178.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.