骨水泥固位与螺丝固位种植体-基台连接内部的液体和微生物渗透情况。

Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections.

作者信息

Piattelli A, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Assenza B, Leghissa G C, Di Bonaventura G, Catamo G, Piccolomini R

机构信息

Dental School, University of Chieti, Italy.

出版信息

J Periodontol. 2001 Sep;72(9):1146-50. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146.

DOI:10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146

PMID:11577944

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It has been recently observed that in implants with screw-retained abutments, in in vitro as well as in vivo conditions, bacteria can penetrate inside the internal cavity of the implant as a consequence of leakage at the implant-abutment interface. An alternative to screw-retained abutments is represented by implants that can receive cemented abutments. In this case, the abutment goes through a transmucosal friction implant extension (collar) and is cemented inside the internal hexagonal portion of the implant. The aim of the present research was to compare fluids and bacterial penetration in 2 different implant systems, one with cement-retained abutments (CRA) and the other with screw-retained abutments (SRA).

METHODS

Twelve CRA dental implants and 12 SRA implants were used in this study. The research was done in 3 steps: scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis, fluid penetration analysis, and bacterial penetration analysis.

RESULTS

Under SEM it was possible to observe in the SRA implants a mean 2 to 7 micron gap between implant and abutment, while in the CRA implants, the gap was 7 micron. In the latter group, however, the gap was always completely filled by the fixation cement. All the spaces between abutment and implant were filled by the cement. 2) With SRA implants, it was possible to observe the presence of toluidine blue at the level of the fixture-abutment interface and the internal threads; the absorbent paper was stained in all cases. With CRA implants, the absorbent paper inside the hollow portion of the implants was never stained by toluidine blue. No penetration of toluidine blue was observed at the implant-abutment interface and inside the hollow portion of the implants. 3) In all the SRA implant assemblies, bacterial penetration was observed at the implant-abutment interface. No bacteria were detected in the hollow portion of the CRA implants.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the results obtained in the present study using 2 different implant systems, we conclude that CRA implants offer better results relating to fluid and bacterial permeability compared to SRA implants.

摘要

背景

最近观察到，在采用螺丝固位基台的种植体中，无论是在体外还是体内条件下，由于种植体与基台界面处的渗漏，细菌可渗入种植体的内部腔隙。可采用粘结固位基台的种植体是螺丝固位基台的一种替代方案。在这种情况下，基台穿过黏膜下摩擦式种植体延伸部（颈部）并粘结在种植体的内部六角形部分内。本研究的目的是比较两种不同种植体系统中的液体和细菌渗入情况，一种是粘结固位基台（CRA）种植体系统，另一种是螺丝固位基台（SRA）种植体系统。

方法

本研究使用了12颗CRA牙科种植体和12颗SRA种植体。研究分三步进行：扫描电子显微镜（SEM）分析、液体渗入分析和细菌渗入分析。

结果

1）在SEM下可以观察到，SRA种植体中种植体与基台之间的平均间隙为2至7微米，而在CRA种植体中，间隙为7微米。然而，在后者组中，间隙总是完全被固定粘结剂填满。基台与种植体之间的所有间隙都被粘结剂填满。2）对于SRA种植体，可以在种植体-基台界面和内螺纹处观察到甲苯胺蓝的存在；所有情况下吸水纸均被染色。对于CRA种植体，种植体中空部分内的吸水纸从未被甲苯胺蓝染色。在种植体-基台界面和种植体中空部分内均未观察到甲苯胺蓝的渗入。3）在所有SRA种植体组件中，在种植体-基台界面观察到细菌渗入。在CRA种植体的中空部分未检测到细菌。