Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Specimen Preparation
2.2. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
2.3. Cyclic Loading
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
Group | Screw | Loading Condition | Homogenous | Non-Homogenous | Smooth | Striated | Porous | Non-Porous | Surface Debris | Additional Features |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 E * | Before | X | X | X | Plastic deformation+ | ||||
After | X | X | X | X | Plastic deformation + cracks + galling | |||||
6 E * | Before | X | X | X | Surface irregularities | |||||
After | X | X | X | X | Surface chips and delamination + galling | |||||
2 | 7 NE † | Before | X | X | X | |||||
After | X | X | X | |||||||
12 NE † | Before | X | X | X | ||||||
After | X | X | X | X | Surface chips + galling | |||||
3 | 13 E * | Before | X | X | X | |||||
After | X | X | X | X | Chips + galling + plastic deformation with thinning of the thread (knife edge) | |||||
14 NE † | Before | X | X | X | ||||||
After | X | X | X | X | ||||||
23 E * | Before | X | X | X | ||||||
After | X | X | X | |||||||
24 NE † | Before | X | X | X | X | Surface irregularities | ||||
After | X | X | X | X | ||||||
4 | 25 NE † | Before | X | X | X | X | ||||
After | X | X | X | X | ||||||
26 NE † | Before | X | X | X | X | Surface irregularities | ||||
After | X | X | X | X | Surface chips and irregularities | |||||
35 NE † | Before | X | X | X | ||||||
After | X | X | X | X | Surface chips + galling | |||||
36 NE † | Before | X | X | X | X | Surface chips + irregularities | ||||
After | X | X | X | X | Plastic deformation + chips + galling + cracks |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- No significant difference in microgap size was detected between the E and NE abutments before and after cyclic loading.
- There was no significant difference in microgap size between the different prosthetic designs before and after CL.
- From the SEM qualitative evaluation, there were similar, notable screw morphology changes after CL between the E and NE abutments.
- Alzoubi, Fawaz M., et al. “Evaluation of two implant-supported fixed partial denture abutment designs: influence on screw surface characteristics.” Journal of Prosthodontics (2023).
- Alzoubi, Fawaz M., et al. “Preload evaluation of 2 implant-supported fixed partial denture abutment designs.” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 128.5 (2022): 1067-e1.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Howe, M.; Keys, W.; Richards, D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2019, 84, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sadowsky, S. Peri-implantitis after 40 years: Evidence, mechanisms, and implications: A mapping review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhima, M.; Paulusova, V.; Lohse, C.; Salinas, T.J.; Carr, A.B. Practice-based evidence from 29-year outcome analysis of management of the edentulous jaw using osseointegrated dental implants. J. Prosthodont. 2014, 23, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sailer, I.; Karasan, D.; Todorovic, A.; Ligoutsikou, M.; Pjetursson, B.E. Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy. Periodontology 2000 2022, 88, 130–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsuge, T.; Hagiwara, Y.; Matsumura, H. Marginal fit and microgaps of implant-abutment interface with internal anti-rotation configuration. Dent. Mater. J. 2008, 27, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, M.; Abramovich, I.; Weiss, E.I. Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: A comparative study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1999, 14, 94. [Google Scholar]
- Jansen, V.; Conrads, G.; Richter, E.J. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1997, 12, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Tesmer, M.; Wallet, S.; Koutouzis, T.; Lundgren, T. Bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: An in vitro study. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 1991–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gould, T.; Brunette, D.; Westbury, L. The attachment mechanism of epithelial cells to titanium in vitro. J. Periodontal Res. 1981, 16, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, M.; Abramovich, I. A comparative study of microleakage at the abutment interface. Implant Dent. 1996, 5, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-turki, L.; Chai, J.; Lautenschlager, E.P.; Hutten, M.C. Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implant-supported prostheses. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2002, 15, 38–42. [Google Scholar]
- Binon, P. Implants and components: Entering the new millennium. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2000, 15, 76–94. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, D.; Houston, F.; Cleary, R.; Claffey, N. The fit of cast and premachined implant abutments. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1998, 80, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carr, A.; Brunski, J.; Hurley, E. Effects of fabrication, finishing, and polishing procedures on preload in prostheses using conventional ‘gold’ and plastic cylinders. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1996, 11, 589–598. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Binon, P. Evaluation of three slip fit hexagonal implants. Implant Dent. 1996, 5, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adell, R.; Lekholm, U.; Rockler, B.; Branemark, P. 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Surg. 1981, 10, 387–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yokoyama, K.; Ichikawa, T.; Murakami, H.; Miyamoto, Y.; Asaoka, K. Fracture mechanisms of retrieved titanium screw thread in dental implant. Biomaterials 2002, 23, 2459–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khraisat, A.; Hashimoto, A.; Nomura, S.; Miyakawa, O. Effect of lateral cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of an external hexagon implant system. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 91, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, S. An overview of Branemark system restorative options. J. Esthet. Dent. 1996, 8, 3–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broggini, N.; McManus, L.; Hermann, J.; Medina, R.; Oates, T.; Schenk, R.; Buser, D.; Mellonig, J.; Cochran, D. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J. Dent. Res. 2003, 82, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermann, J. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J. Periodontol. 2001, 72, 1372–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, G.; Hermann, J.; Schoolfield, J.; Buser, D.; Cochran, D.L. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Quirynen, M.; Van Steenberghe, D. Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two stage implants: An in vivo study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 1993, 4, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alkan, I.; Sertgoz, A.; Ekici, B. Influence of occlusal forces on stress distribution in preloaded dental implant screws. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 91, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watanabe, F.; Uno, I.; Hata, Y.; Neuendorff, G.; Kirsch, A. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2000, 15, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Sakaguchi, R.; Borgersen, S. Nonlinear finite element contact analysis of dental implant components. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1993, 8, 655–661. [Google Scholar]
- O’Mahony, A.; MacNeill, S.; Cobb, C. Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: A retrospective analysis of failed implants. Quintessence Int. 2000, 31, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
- Broggini, N.; McManus, L.M.; Hermann, J.S.; Medina, R.; Schenk, R.K.; Buser, D.; Cochran, D.L. Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J. Dent. Res. 2006, 85, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boggan, R.; Strong, J.; Misch, C.; Bidez, M. Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1999, 82, 436–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vetromilla, B.; Brondani, L.; Pereira-Cenci, T.; Bergoli, C. Influence of different implant-abutment connection designs on the mechanical and biological behavior of single-tooth implants in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binon, P. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1996, 9, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Vigolo, P.; Fonzi, F.; Majzoub, Z.; Cordioli, G. An in vitro evaluation of titanium, zirconia, and alumina procera abutments with hexagonal connection. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2006, 21, 575–580. [Google Scholar]
- Jorn, D.; Kohorst, P.; Besdo, S.; Borchers, L.; Stiesch, M. Three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis and microcomputed tomography evaluation of microgap formation in a dental implant under oblique loading. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2016, 31, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakamoto, K.; Homma, S.; Takanashi, T.; Takemoto, S.; Furuya, Y.; Yoshinari, M.; Yajima, Y. Influence of eccentric cyclic loading on implant components: Comparison between external joint system and internal joint system. Dent. Mat. 2016, 35, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinebrunner, L.; Wolfart, S.; Bossmann, K.; Kern, M. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2005, 20, 875–881. [Google Scholar]
- Cosola, S.; Marconcini, S.; Boccuzzi, M.; Menchini Fabris, G.B.; Covani, U.; Peñarrocha-Diago, M.; Peñarrocha-Oltra, D. Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ericsson, I.; Nilner, K.; Klinge, B.; Glantz, P.O. Radiographical and histological characteristics of submerged and nonsubmerged titanium implants: An experimental study in the Labrador dog. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 1996, 7, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ericsson, I.; Persson, L.; Berglundh, T.; Marinello, C.; Lindhe, J.; Klinge, B. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1995, 22, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laney, W.; Tolman, D. Tissue Integration in Oral, Orthopedic, and Maxillofacial Reconstruction, 1st ed.; Quintessence Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 1993; pp. 218–226. [Google Scholar]
- Baixe, S.; Tenenbaum, H.; Etienne, O. Microbial contamination of the implant-abutment connections: Review of the literature. Rev. Stomatol. Chir. Maxillofac. Chir. Orale 2016, 117, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dellow, A.; Driessen, C.; Nel, H. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of the interfacial fit of interchanged components of four dental implant systems. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1997, 10, 216–221. [Google Scholar]
- Binon, P.; McHugh, M. The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1996, 9, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Binon, P. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1995, 8, 162–178. [Google Scholar]
- Möllersten, L.; Lockowandt, P.; Linden, L.A. Comparison of strength and failure mode of seven implant systems: An in vitro test. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1997, 78, 582–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Finger, I.; Castellon, P.; Block, M.; Elian, N. The evolution of external and internal implant/abutment connections. Pract. Proced. Aesthet. Dent. 2003, 15, 625–632. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, M.; Shen, Y.; Huang, H.; Hsu, J.; Fuh, L. A retrospective study of implant–abutment connections on crestal bone level. J. Dent. Res. 2013, 92, 202S–207S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenbaum, T.R. Implant Prosthodontics: Protocols and Techniques for Fixed Implant Restorations; Quintessence Publishing Company: Batavia, IL, USA, 2021; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- Schoenbaum, T.R.; Stevenson, R.G.; Balinghasay, E.R. The hemi-engaging fixed dental implant prosthesis: A technique for improved stability and handling. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 17–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koo, K.; Lee, E.; Kim, J.; Seol, Y.; Han, J.S.; Kim, T.; Lee, Y.M.; Ku, Y.; Wikesjö, U.M.; Rhyu, I. The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: A radiographic analysis. J. Periodontol. 2012, 83, 1104–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peñarrocha-Diago, M.; Flichy-Fernandez, A.J.; Alonso-Gonzalez, R.; Peñarrocha-Oltra, D.; Balaguer-Martinez, J.; Penarrocha-Diago, M. Influence of implant neck design and implant abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiol. Study Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2013, 24, 1192–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merz, B.R.; Hunenbart, S.T.; Belser, U.C. 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. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Zarb, G.A.; Schmitt, A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1990, 64, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodacre, C.J.; Bernal, G.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Kan, J.Y. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003, 90, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johansson, L.A.; Ekfeldt, A. Implant-supported fixed partial prostheses: A retrospective study. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2003, 16, 172–176. [Google Scholar]
- McGlumphy, E.A.; Mendel, D.A.; Holloway, J.A. Implant screw mechanics. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 1998, 42, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epprecht, A.; Zeltner, M.; Benic, G.; Özcan, M. A strain gauge analysis comparing 4-unit veneered zirconium dioxide implant-borne fixed dental prosthesis on engaging and non-engaging abutments before and after torque application. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2018, 4, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seetoh, Y.; Tan, K.; Chua, E.; Quek, H.; Nicholls, J. Load fatigue performance of conical implant-abutment connections. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2011, 26, 797–806. [Google Scholar]
- Assenza, B.; Tripodi, D.; Scarano, A.; Perrotti, V.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G.; D’Ercole, S. Bacterial leakage in implants with different implant abutment connections: An in vitro study. J. Periodontol. 2012, 83, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isa, Z.; Hobkirk, J. The effects of superstructure fit and loading on individual implant units: Part I. The effects of tightening the gold screws and placement of a superstructure with varying degrees of fit. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 1995, 3, 247–253. [Google Scholar]
- Nithyapriya, S.; Ramesh, A.; Kirubakaran, A.; Mani, J.; Raghunathan, J. Systematic analysis of factors that cause loss of preload in dental implants. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2018, 18, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guzaitis, K.; Knoernschild, K.; Viana, M.A. Effect of repeated screw joint closing and opening cycles on implant prosthetic screw reverse torque and implant and screw thread morphology. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2011, 106, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Jabbari, Y.; Fournelle, R.; Ziebert, G.; Toth, J.; Iacopino, A.M. Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 1: Characterization of adhesive wear and structure of retaining screws. J. Prosthodont. 2008, 17, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Totten, G.E. Friction, lubrication and wear technology. In ASM Handbook, 4th ed.; ASM: Materials Park, OH, USA, 1992; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- Binon, P.; Weir, D.; Marshall, S. Surface analysis of an original Branemark implant and three related clones. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1992, 7, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Boeckler, A.; Stadler, A.; Setz, J. The significance of marginal gap and overextension measurement in the evaluation of the fit of complete crowns. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2005, 6, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rismanchian, M.; Hatami, M.; Badrian, H.; Khalighinejad, N.; Goroohi, H. Evaluation of microgap size and microbial leakage in the connection area of 4 abutments with Straumann (ITI) implant. Oral Implantol. 2012, 38, 677–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piattelli, A.; Scarano, A.; Paolantonio, M.; Assenza, B.; Leghissa, G.C.; Di Bonaventura, G.; Catamo, G.; Piccolomini, R. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. J. Periodontol. 2001, 72, 1146–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kano, S.; Binon, P.; Curtis, D.A. A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2007, 22, 879. [Google Scholar]
- Kano, S.; Binon, P.; Bonfante, G.; Curtis, D.A. Effect of casting procedures on screw loosening in UCLA type abutments. J. Prosthodont. 2006, 15, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oyagüe, R.; Sánchez-Turrión, A.; López-Lozano, J.; Suárez-García, M. Vertical discrepancy and microleakage of laser-sintered and vacuum-cast implant-supported structures luted with different cement types. J. Dent. 2012, 40, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bickford, J. An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 515–564. [Google Scholar]
- Sahin, S.; Çehreli, M. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: Current status. Implant Dent. 2001, 10, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, T.; Agar, J.; Vogiatzi, T. Implant prosthodontics: Current perspective and future directions. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2000, 15, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
- Lie, A.; Jemt, T. Photogrametric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 1994, 5, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorensen, J. A standardized method for determination of crown margin fidelity. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1990, 64, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selvamani, N.; Shanmugasundaram, R.; Selvaraj, A.; Ranganathan, G.; Abraham, S.; Kirubakaran, A. In Vitro Comparison of Loss of Torque between Gold and Titanium Alloy Abutment Screws in Dental Implants without Any Cyclic Loads. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2022, 23, 801–806. [Google Scholar]
- Arshad, M.; Mahgoli, H.; Payaminia, L. Effect of repeated screw joint closing and opening cycles and cyclic loading on abutment screw removal torque and screw thread morphology: Scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2018, 33, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alzoubi, F.M.; Sabti, M.; Alsarraf, E.; Alshahrani, F.A.; Sadowsky, S.J. Evaluation of two implant-supported fixed partial denture abutment designs: Influence on screw surface characteristics. J. Prosthodont. 2024, 33, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tzenakis, G.K.; Nagy, W.W.; Fournelle, R.A.; Dhuru, V.B. The effect of repeated torque and salivary contamination on the preload of slotted gold implant prosthetic screws. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002, 88, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, K.; Kim, J.; Yeo, I. Clinical significance of internal friction connection and micro-threads in implant-supported prostheses: A literature review. Rec. Prog. Mater. 2020, 2, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsuoka, T.; Nakano, T.; Yamaguchi, S.; Ono, S.; Watanabe, S.; Sato, T.; Yatani, H. Effects of Implant–Abutment Connection Type and Inter-Implant Distance on Inter-Implant Bone Stress and Microgap: Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Materials 2021, 14, 2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winkler, S.; Ring, K.; Ring, J.; Boberick, K. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: An overview. Oral Implantol. 2003, 29, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosola, S.; Toti, P.; Babetto, E.; Covani, U.; Peñarrocha-Diago, M.; Peñarrocha-Oltra, D. In-vitro fatigue and fracture performance of three different ferrulized implant connections used in fixed prosthesis. J. Dent Sci. 2021, 16, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, R.G.; Powers, J.M. Restorative Dental Materials, 11th ed.; CV Mosby Co.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mohl, N.D. Introduction to Occlusion. In A Textbook of Occlusion; Mohl, N.D., Zarb, G.A., Carlsson, G.E., Rugh, J.D., Eds.; Quintessence Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988; pp. 143–152. [Google Scholar]
- Bagegni, A.; Zabler, S.; Nelson, K.; Rack, A.; Spies, B.C.; Vach, K.; Kohal, R. Synchrotron-based micro computed tomography investigation of the implant-abutment fatigue-induced microgap changes. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 116, 104330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abutment Type | % of Specimens > 10 µm | Microgap Size (M ± SD * µm) | |
---|---|---|---|
Before Axial CL | Engaging | 50.0% (6/12) | 15.7 ± 5.4 |
Non-engaging | 41.7% (10/24) | 15.1 ± 3.0 | |
After Axial CL | Engaging | 25.0% (3/12) | 14.3 ± 1.2 |
Non-engaging | 41.7% (10/24) | 16.4 ± 6.1 |
Microgap Size | Total | χ2 | p | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤10 µm | >10 µm | |||||||
Before Axial CL | ||||||||
Engaging Abutments | 6 | 50.0% | 6 | 50.0% | 12 | 100.0% | 0.23 | 0.635 |
Non-engaging Abutments | 14 | 58.3% | 10 | 41.7% | 24 | 100.0% | ||
After Axial CL | ||||||||
Engaging Abutments | 9 | 75.0% | 3 | 25.0% | 12 | 100.0% | 0.96 | 0.326 |
Non-engaging Abutments | 14 | 58.3% | 10 | 41.7% | 24 | 100.0% |
Microgap Size after Axial CL | Total | McNemar Test (p) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤10 µm | >10 µm | |||||||
Engaging Abutments | ||||||||
Microgap Size Before Axial CL | ≤10 µm | 6 | 100.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 6 | 100.0% | 0.250 |
>10 µm | 3 | 50.0% | 3 | 50.0% | 6 | 100.0% | ||
Non-engaging Abutments | ||||||||
Microgap Size Before Axial CL | ≤10 µm | 12 | 85.7% | 2 | 14.3% | 14 | 100.0% | 1.000 |
>10 µm | 2 | 20.0% | 8 | 80.0% | 10 | 100.0% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alzoubi, F.M.; Sabti, M.Y.; Alsarraf, E.; Alshahrani, F.A.; Sadowsky, S.J. Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology. Dent. J. 2024, 12, 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080265
Alzoubi FM, Sabti MY, Alsarraf E, Alshahrani FA, Sadowsky SJ. Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology. Dentistry Journal. 2024; 12(8):265. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080265
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlzoubi, Fawaz M., Mohammad Y. Sabti, Esra Alsarraf, Faris A. Alshahrani, and Steven J. Sadowsky. 2024. "Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology" Dentistry Journal 12, no. 8: 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080265