World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Microbial Leakage in Three Different Implant Abutment Connections by Analyzing the Presence of Staphylococci: An In Vitro Study

Pranav Desai, Paresh Gandhi, Rajashree Jadhav, Aarti Gachake, Rupali Patil, Pankaj Kadam

Keywords : Dental implants, Implant-abutment connection, Implant-abutment microgap, Peri-implantitis

Citation Information : Desai P, Gandhi P, Jadhav R, Gachake A, Patil R, Kadam P. Evaluation of Microbial Leakage in Three Different Implant Abutment Connections by Analyzing the Presence of Staphylococci: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (1):6-12.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2356

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate and compare microbial leakage occurring in three different popularly used implant-abutment connections (IAC). Materials and methods: Nine implant analogs and abutments have a Conelog connection (BioHorizons, United States of America), nine implant analog and abutments have a Conexa connection (B&B, Italy), and nine implant analog and abutments have an Internal octagon connection (Osstem, Korea) were immersed in bacterial peptone broth containing Staphylococci bacteria for 14 days. After this time, the implant analog abutment assemblies were disassembled, and swabs were taken from the internal surface of the connection, which were then cultured and evaluated for growth. Results: Microbial leakage was seen in 15 out of 27 samples. Conclusion: Higher quantities of bacterial ingress were seen in the Conexa and Internal octagon connections. However, the differences were not found to be statistically significant. Clinical significance: The implant abutment connections is one of the most crucial components of the implant-prosthesis system, especially when it comes to the longevity of the treatment. When this IAC is subjected to occlusal loading, micromovements of the abutment occur, which perpetuate a microgap between the abutment and implant. This microgap can cause leakage of microorganisms, which would then act as a bacterial reservoir. This gap is located at the level of the alveolar crest. This could lead to unfavorable biological consequences such as inflammation and infection, leading to peri-implantitis and increased crestal bone loss, which could ultimately lead to implant failure.

  1. Wang F, Zhang Z, Monje A, et al. Intermediate long-term clinical performance of dental implants placed in sites with a previous early implant failure: a retrospective analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(12):1443–1449. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12485
  2. Aloise JP, Curcio R, Laporta MZ, et al. Microbial leakage through the implant-abutment interface of Morse taper implants in vitro. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(3):328–335. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01837.x
  3. Gross M, Abramovich I, Weiss EI. Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14(1):94–100. PMID: 10074758.
  4. 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(1):148–154. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175677
  5. Khorshidi H, Raoofi S, Moattari A, et al. In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage at implant-abutment connection: an 11-degree morse taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Biomater 2016;2016:8527849. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8527849
  6. Cosyn J, Van Aelst L, Collaert B, et al. The peri-implant sulcus compared with internal implant and suprastructure components: a microbiological analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13(4):286–295. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x
  7. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, et al. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Brånemark system. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5(4):239–244. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050407.x
  8. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12(4):527–40. PMID: 9274082.
  9. Nassar HI, Abdalla MF. Bacterial leakage of different internal implant/abutment connection. Future Dent J 2015;1(1):1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2015.09.001
  10. 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;76(1):115–120. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.1.115
  11. 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(12):1991–1997. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.090178
  12. Koka S, Razzoog ME, Bloem TJ, et al. Microbial colonization of dental implants in partially edentulous subjects. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(2):141–144. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90009-d
  13. Nakazato G, Tsuchiya H, Sato M, et al. In vivo plaque formation on implant materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4(4):321–36. PMID: 2561743.
  14. Roque WF, Peixoto CC, Silva GJ et al. Internal vs external hexagon implants: best match. Acta Sci Dental Sci 2019;3(12):104–107. DOI: 10.31080/ASDS.2019.03.0708
  15. Faria R, May LG, De Vasconcellos DK, et al. Evaluation of the bacterial leakage along the implant abutment interface. J Dent Implant 2011;1(2):51. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.91280
  16. Ohara-Nemoto Y, Haraga H, Kimura S, et al. Occurrence of staphylococci in the oral cavities of healthy adults and nasal oral trafficking of the bacteria. J Med Microbiol 2008;57(Pt 1):95–99. DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.47561-0
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.