Implant-abutment Interface Micromotion of Three Different Implant Neck Designs

Implant-abutment Interface Micromotion of Three Different Implant Neck Designs
10 March 2005
J. MENG, J.E. EVERTS, F. QIAN, and D.G. GRATTON, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
IADR
Objectives: Maintaining mechanical integration at the dental implant-abutment interface is paramount for clinical success of dental implant prostheses. This study evaluated dynamic micromotion at the implant-abutment interface for three different implant neck designs (Straumann standard-4.1, synOctaÇ—¢-4.1 and synOctaTE-4.1) utilizing solid abutments under simulated oral conditions.
Methods: Five samples from each implant group were evaluated, with each implant randomly mated to a 5.5mm Straumann solid abutment and tightened to 35Ncm preload torque. Fifteen identical frameworks simulating cast gold crowns were luted with zinc phosphate cement onto each solid abutment. Cyclic load was applied to each crown framework with a universal loading machine; load magnitude varied from 10-250N, at a rate of 15Hz, utilizing a sinusoidal duty cycle. Micromotion data was collected and recorded with a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) for 150 cycles at the following intervals: 0; 500; 1,000; 5,000; 10,000; 25,000; 50,000; 75,000; 105 and every 105 cycles thereafter to 106 cycles.
Results: The mean micromotion values after 106 cycles for the standard 4.1, synOcta-4.1 and synOctaTE-4.1 were 93.15¨±12.54¨µm, 86.81¨±6.80¨µm, and 77.07¨±18.72¨µm respectively. Two-way ANOVA provided no evidence of a significant interaction between the type of implants and level of cycles (p=0.9989). Results revealed that the mean micromotion of the standard 4.1 implant was significantly greater than the mean micromotion of the other two implants (synOcta-4.1 and synOctaTE-4.1), while synOcta-4.1 had significantly greater micromotion than synOctaTE-4.1 (p<0.0001, Tukey's studentized range [HSD]). The effect of the number of cycles proved to be non-significant (p=0.9999).
Conclusions: The differences in neck design among these three implant groups resulted in differences in micromotion at the implant-abutment interface for each group when used in conjunction with the 5.5mm solid abutment.