Displacement and performance of abutments in narrow-diameter implants with different internal connections

Abstract

Statement of problemDisplacement of abutments into conical connection implants during screw tightening may also occur during functional loading, creating unsettling forces that may cause loss of preload. A recent conical-hexagon connection with double friction fit (conical-hexagon connection) could prevent this axial displacement. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the 3D axial displacement of abutments with a conical-hexagon connection or conical connection in narrow-diameter implants. Removal torque values (RTVs), preload efficiency, and survival after cyclic loading were also compared. Material and methodsNarrow-diameter implants with a conical connection (Osseospeed EV, 3.0×13 mm-AST) and narrow-diameter implants with a conical-hexagon connection (Eztetic, 3.1×13 mm) were embedded in resin rods (G10) (n=6). Six titanium abutments per system were used, and their spatial relationship to the implant platforms after hand tightening was determined by using 3D digital image correlation. The abutments were tightened to the manufacturers’ specified values, and the abutments’ relative position was recorded again. The displacement of the abutment after tightening was calculated. The implants were subjected to cyclic loading (5×106 cycles at 2 Hz) under 200-N loads at a 30-degree angle. After cyclic loading, the RTVs of screws were measured and compared with those specified by the manufacturers to calculate preload efficiency. ANOVA was used to compare the differences in displacements after tightening and to compare differences in RTVs after cyclic loading across the groups (α=.05). ResultsThe mean displacement in the U direction (X-axis) for the AST was −0.7 μm and −4.7 μm for ZIM, with no statistical difference (P=.73). The mean displacement in the V direction (Y-axis) for AST was −37.0 μm, and −150.0 μm for ZIM, with significant statistical difference (P<.001). The mean displacement in the W direction (Z-axis) for AST was −0.9 μm, and −23.0 μm for ZIM, with no statistical difference (P=.35). The survival of groups was similar (P=.058). During cyclic loading, 3 AST specimens fractured. After cyclic loading, mean RTV for AST was −8.77 Ncm, and −14.24 Ncm for ZIM, and these values were significantly different (P=.04). Preload efficiency was 28.1% for AST and 41.5% for ZIM. ConclusionsGreater abutment displacements were observed with the conical-hexagon connection, which required a higher torque, as specified by its manufacturer. The abutments displaced more in the V-axis in both implants. Only the conical connection implant (Ti Grade 4, commercially pure) had failures during cyclic loading, but the survival of the implants was similar. After cyclic loading, the abutment screws in both systems lost some of their torque value. The abutment screws of the conical-hexagon connection implant maintained preload more efficiently during cyclic loading than those of the conical connection implant.