Introduction: The significance of the microgap and surface characteristics at the implant/abutment interface is critical for the long-term stability and biocompatibility of the implant system, as they can influence bacterial colonization, micromovements, and osseointegration.
Aim: The objective of the present study is the development of a device and methodology for the preparation of specimens from various dental implant systems, intended for microscopic examination of the topography of the implant platform and the microgap between the dental implant and the abutment.
Methods: A device has been designed, consisting of three components: a cylindrical tube, an upper part, and a lower part. The working surface of the upper part is a convex cone, while that of the lower part is concave, allowing for axial fixation of an implant or an implant/abutment assembly from different systems. The working space of the device is confined by a tube with an opening through which the implants are embedded in resin. After polymerization of the resin, the specimens are sectioned precisely along the longitudinal axis.
Results: A methodology has been developed, consisting of the following steps: fixation of the implant or implant/abutment assembly in the lower part; placement of the cylindrical tube; fixation and closure of the device with the upper part; embedding in epoxy resin; resin polymerization; removal of the specimen from the device; longitudinal sectioning of the specimen along the implant axis; grinding of the specimen; polishing of the specimen.
Conclusion: The developed device and methodology for the preparation of specimens from different implant systems for microscopic examination have been successfully tested and validated.
Matos GRM. Surface Roughness of Dental Implant and Osseointegration. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2021 Mar;20(1):1-4. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01437-5.
Filipova T, Dikova T, Peev S. Factors that affect abutment screw loosening and microleakage on dental implant-abutment systems after cyclic loading. A review. Scr Sci Med Dent. 2024;10(2): 51-62. doi: 10.14748/ssmd.v10i2.9787.
American Academy of Implant Dentistry. Glossary of implant terms. J Oral Implantol. 1986;12(2):284-94.
Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont. 1993 Mar-Apr;6(2):95-105. PMID: 8329101.
Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Mar;21 Suppl 1:4-7. doi: 10.1111/cid.12742.
Lacefield WR. Materials characteristics of uncoated/ceramic-coated implant materials. Adv Dent Res. 1999 Jun;13:21-6. doi: 10.1177/08959374990130011001.
Albrektsson T, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Osseointegration: Historic background and current concepts. In: Linke J, Karring T, Lang NP, editors. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. 4th ed. Blackwell Munksgaard, Oxford; 2003. pp. 809–20.
Sawase T, Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Miyamoto I, Albrektsson T. Atomic force microscopic study of commercially available implant abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(2):92-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00097.x.
Quirynen M, Van der Mei HC, Bollen CML, Schotte A, Marechal M, Doornbusch GI, et al. An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra-and subgingival plaque. J Dent Res. 1993;72(9):1304-9. doi: 10.1177/00220345930720090801.
Brum I, Elias C, Lopes J, Frigo L, Santos P, Carvalho JJ. Clinical Analysis of the Influence of Surface Roughness in the Primary Stability and Osseointegration of Dental Implants: Study in Humans. Coatings. 2024;14(8):951. doi: 10.3390/coatings14080951.
Soares FMS, Elias CN, Monteiro ES, Coimbra MER, Santana AIC. Galvanic Corrosion of Ti Dental Implants Coupled to CoCrMo Prosthetic Component. Int J Biomater. 2021 Oct 22;2021:1313343. doi: 10.1155/2021/1313343.
Khalil MI, Sakr H. Implant Surface Topography Following Different Laser Treatments: An In Vitro Study. Cureus. 2023 May 8;15(5):e38731. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38731.
Femiljilta C, Ravichandran R, Karunakaran H, Nair V, Janardanan K, Zeenath H. (2020). Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of three different dental implant abutments using atomic force mi-croscopy: An in vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2020;06(3):643-7. doi: 10.22271/oral.2020.v6.i3j.1017.
Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Sep;7(3):201-11. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.x.
Vohra F, Alsaif R, Khan R, Bukhari IA. Comparison of misfit and roughness of CAD-CAM ZrO, selective laser sintered CoCr and preformed Ti implant abutment crowns. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Aug 25;24(1):999. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04735-3.
Vélez J, Peláez J, López-Suárez C, Agustín-Panadero R, Tobar C, Suárez MJ. Influence of Implant Connection, Abutment Design and Screw Insertion Torque on Implant-Abutment Misfit. J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 24;9(8):2365. doi: 10.3390/jcm9082365.
Cardozo R, Olate S, Navarro P, Araya J, González O, Carrasco J, et al. (2017). Analysis of the abutment-implant platform gap in internal hex dental implants. Biomed Res. 2017;28(8):3336-9.
Baixe S, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Etienne O. Microgap between zirconia abutments and titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):455-60.
Email this article (Login required) 
