Mishra Sunil Kumar, Chowdhary Ramesh, Kumari Shail
Reader, Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Peoples College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Professor, Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Implantology, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jun;11(6):ZE10-ZE15. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/28951.10054. Epub 2017 Jun 1.
Presence of gap at the implant-abutment interface, leads to microleakage and accumulation of bacteria which can affect the success of dental implants.
To evaluate the sealing capability of different implant connections against microleakage.
In January 2017 an electronic search of literature was performed, in Medline, EBSCO host and Pubmed data base. The search was focused on ability of different implant connections in preventing microleakage. The related titles and abstracts available in English were screened, and the articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for full text reading.
In this systematic review, literature search initially resulted in 78 articles among which 30 articles only fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and were finally included in the review. Almost all the studies showed that there was some amount of microleakage at abutment implant interface. Microleakage was very less in Morse taper implants in comparison to other implant connections. Majority of studies showed less microleakage in static loading conditions and microleakage increases in dynamic loading conditions.
In this systematic review maximum studies showed that there was some amount of microleakage at abutment implant interface. External hexagon implants failed completely to prevent microleakage in both static and dynamic loading conditions of implants. Internal hexagon implants mainly internal conical (Morse taper) implants are very promising in case of static loading and also showed less microleakage in dynamic loading conditions. Torque recommended by manufacturer should be followed strictly to get a better seal at abutment implant interface. Zirconia abutments are more to microleakage than Titanium abutments and there use should be discouraged. Zirconia abutments should be only restricted to cases where there was very high demand of aesthetics.
种植体与基台界面存在间隙会导致微渗漏和细菌积聚，进而影响牙种植体的成功率。
评估不同种植体连接方式对微渗漏的密封能力。
2017年1月，在Medline、EBSCOhost和Pubmed数据库中进行了电子文献检索。检索重点是不同种植体连接方式防止微渗漏的能力。筛选了英文的相关标题和摘要，选择符合纳入标准的文章进行全文阅读。
在本系统评价中，文献检索最初得到78篇文章，其中仅30篇文章符合纳入标准，最终纳入评价。几乎所有研究都表明，种植体与基台界面存在一定程度的微渗漏。与其他种植体连接方式相比，莫氏锥度种植体的微渗漏非常少。大多数研究表明，静态加载条件下微渗漏较少，动态加载条件下微渗漏增加。
在本系统评价中，大多数研究表明种植体与基台界面存在一定程度的微渗漏。外六角种植体在种植体的静态和动态加载条件下均完全无法防止微渗漏。内六角种植体，主要是内锥形（莫氏锥度）种植体在静态加载情况下非常有前景，在动态加载条件下微渗漏也较少。应严格遵循制造商推荐的扭矩，以在种植体与基台界面获得更好的密封。氧化锆基台比钛基台更容易出现微渗漏，应避免使用。氧化锆基台仅应限于对美观要求非常高的情况。
