The precision of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface

Abstract

Statement of problem. Percussion, visual observation, and conventional periapical radiographs are the methods most frequently used clinically to evaluate the accuracy of implant component assemblies, whereas methods to measure the precision of fit are limited. Purpose. In this study the Periotest instrument was used to evaluate the stability of the interfaces between the implant and the abutment, along with the abutment and the gold cylinder under a series of assembly conditions. The hypothesis tested is that a more negative Periotest value (PTV) would indicate an accurate fit and a more positive value PTV would correlate with an inaccurate fit. Material and methods. To investigate this hypothesis in vitro, two bovine ribs were used as patient simulation models. Each model contained three self-tapping Brånemark implants placed approximately 7 to 10 mm apart and arranged in a reasonable curvature. A series of component assembly conditions were created as accurate and inaccurate with thickness gauges of 25.4 μm, 50.8 μm, and 101.6 μm. Results. The mean Periotest values and SDs for accurately assembled abutments and gold cylinders were 6.0 ± 0.32 and 3.4 ± 0.68, respectively. Periotest value data of the assembly conditions were statistically analyzed with multiple regression analysis. The misfit in the implant to abutment interface resulted in a more negative Periotest value trend ( r = 0.54) with increases in gauge thickness. However, the same magnitudes of misfit at the abutment to gold cylinder interface produced a more positive Periotest value trend ( r = 0.72). Conclusion. The PTV trends were consistent with increased stability at the abutment to implant interface from the increasing magnitude of misfit created with the thickness gauges. In contrast, the measurement trends observed for the abutment to gold cylinder interface were consistent with decreased stability with each increase in gauge thickness inserted at the interface. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:497-502.)