• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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

  1. 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。

结论

基于本研究使用两种不同种植体系统所获得的结果,我们得出结论,与SRA种植体相比,CRA种植体在液体和细菌渗透性方面表现出更好的结果。

相似文献

1
Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections.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。
J Periodontol. 2001 Sep;72(9):1146-50. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146.
2
Bacterial leakage in implants with different implant-abutment connections: an in vitro study.不同种植体-基台连接体的细菌渗漏:一项体外研究。
J Periodontol. 2012 Apr;83(4):491-7. doi: 10.1902/jop.2011.110320. Epub 2011 Jul 22.
3
A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments.一项对272个人类钛植入物与其基台之间微间隙的16年研究。
J Oral Implantol. 2005;31(6):269-75. doi: 10.1563/753.1.
4
In vitro evaluation of reverse torque value of abutment screw and marginal opening in a screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design.体外评估螺丝固位和粘结固位种植体固定修复体基台螺丝的反向扭矩值和边缘间隙。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Nov-Dec;24(6):1061-7.
5
An in vitro investigation concerning the bacterial leakage at implants with internal hexagon and Morse taper implant-abutment connections.一种关于内六角和莫尔斯锥度种植体-基台连接的种植体细菌渗漏的体外研究。
Implant Dent. 2012 Aug;21(4):335-9. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31825cd472.
6
Influence of repeated screw tightening on bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface.反复拧紧螺钉对种植体-基台界面细菌渗漏的影响。
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Dec;20(12):1394-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01769.x. Epub 2009 Aug 26.
7
Leakage of saliva through the implant-abutment interface: in vitro evaluation of three different implant connections under unloaded and loaded conditions.种植体-基台界面的唾液渗漏:三种不同种植体连接在非负重和负重条件下的体外评估。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):551-60.
8
Bacterial colonisation of interior implant threads with and without sealing.有密封和无密封情况下种植体内种植体螺纹的细菌定植情况。
Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2006 Feb;65(1):75-7.
9
Bacterial colonization of the implant-abutment interface using an in vitro dynamic loading model.采用体外动态加载模型研究种植体-基台界面的细菌定植。
J Periodontol. 2011 Apr;82(4):613-8. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100415. Epub 2010 Nov 2.
10
In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of an external-hex implant after saliva incubation.唾液孵育后体外评估外六角种植体-基台界面的细菌渗漏情况。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):782-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Engaging vs. Non-Engaging Abutments: An In Vitro Study Evaluating Changes in Microgap and Screw Morphology.功能性基台与非功能性基台:一项评估微间隙和螺钉形态变化的体外研究。
Dent J (Basel). 2024 Aug 20;12(8):265. doi: 10.3390/dj12080265.
2
An evaluation of effect of implant abutment on human gingival epithelial keratinocytes.种植体基台对人牙龈上皮角质细胞影响的评价。
Ann Afr Med. 2022 Jul-Sep;21(3):217-222. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_116_20.
3
The effect of dynamic loading on bacterial microleakage of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: An study.
动态负载对牙种植体-基台界面细菌微渗漏的影响:一项研究。
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021 Oct-Dec;21(4):420-424. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_96_21.
4
Control of Peri-Implant Mucous Inflammation by Using Chlorhexidine or Ultraviolet C Radiation for Cleaning Healing Abutments. Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.使用氯己定或紫外线C辐射清洁愈合基台对种植体周围黏膜炎症的控制。双盲随机临床试验。
Materials (Basel). 2020 Mar 3;13(5):1124. doi: 10.3390/ma13051124.
5
Marginal Discrepancy of Cast Copings to Abutments with Three Different Luting Agents.三种不同粘结剂的铸造桩核与基牙之间的边缘差异
Int J Dent. 2019 Sep 2;2019:8657582. doi: 10.1155/2019/8657582. eCollection 2019.
6
Physicochemical and microscopic characterization of implant-abutment joints.种植体-基台连接的物理化学和微观表征
Eur J Dent. 2018 Jan-Mar;12(1):100-104. doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_3_17.
7
The influence of implant-abutment connection on the screw loosening and microleakage.种植体-基台连接对螺钉松动和微渗漏的影响。
Int J Implant Dent. 2018 Apr 9;4(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0121-y.
8
Impact of Dynamic Loading on the Implant-abutment Interface Using a Gas-enhanced Permeation Test In Vitro.使用气体增强渗透试验在体外研究动态加载对种植体-基台界面的影响。
Open Dent J. 2015 Mar 31;9:112-9. doi: 10.2174/1874210601509010112. eCollection 2015.
9
Implant-abutment connections: influence of the design on the microgap and their fatigue and fracture behavior of dental implants.种植体-基台连接:设计对种植体微间隙及其疲劳和断裂行为的影响。
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014 Jul;25(7):1825-30. doi: 10.1007/s10856-014-5211-7. Epub 2014 Apr 10.
10
Biofilm and dental implant: The microbial link.生物膜与牙种植体:微生物关联
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013 Jan;17(1):5-11. doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.107466.