Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(03): 860-868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776314
Original Article

Effect of Repeated Moist Heat Sterilization on Titanium Implant–Abutment Interface—An In Vitro Study

Mohamed S.M. Morsy
1   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, KSA
,
Ali Abdel-Halim Abdel-Azim Hassan
2   Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, KSA
,
Hamed A. Alshawkani
3   Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, KSA
,
Khurshid A. Mattoo
1   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, KSA
,
Ankita Mathur 
4   Department of Periodontology, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India
,
Luca Fiorillo 
5   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences, Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
6   Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Sterilization eliminates microbial viability by decreasing the biological load, but likewise have the ability to deteriorate the mechanical properties of an implant material. This study intended to evaluate the effect of repeated moist heat sterilization on implant–abutment interface using two different implant systems.

Materials and Methods Forty screw-retained titanium implant–abutment combinations (fixture 3.5 ×10 mm, abutment 2 mm diameter), twenty each from Genesis (Aktiv Implant Systems, United States) and Bredent (SKY, Germany), were divided into four different groups (n = 10) and placed in a computer-aided diagnostic model. The abutments from each group were exposed to first and second autoclave cycle (121°C for 30 minutes), connected back to the fixture and analyzed under scanning electron microscope for marginal gap and surface roughness.

Results Genesis group showed higher marginal gaps on both sides (buccal/mesial [2.8 ± 0.47]; lingual/distal [2.8 ± 0.33]), while Bredent implant–abutment system (IAS) did not show any changes in marginal gaps after autoclaving. Differences within and between the group were found to be statistically significant. Surface roughness for Genesis (243.7 ± 70.30) and Bredent groups (528.9 ± 213.19) was highest at second autoclave, with Bredent implant–abutment showing higher values for surface roughness than Genesis IAS.

Conclusion Marginal vertical gap increased with autoclaving for Genesis IAS, while Bredent implant abutments were more stable. Surface roughness increases with autoclaving for both Genesis and Bredent group of IAS.

Keywords

titanium abutments - implant–abutment interface - sterilization - marginal gap - surface roughness - dental implant

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request to the corresponding author.


Authors' Contribution

M.S.M.M. and A.A-H.A.A. were involved in conceptualization, methodology, and writing of original manuscript; H.A.A. contributed to methodology and writing of original manuscript; K.A.M. and A.M. helped in methodology and supervision; L.F. was involved in supervision and project administration.




Publication History

Article published online:
10 January 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Att W, Ogawa T. Biological aging of implant surfaces and their restoration with ultraviolet light treatment: a novel understanding of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (04) 753-761
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Greenfield EJ. Implantation of artificial crown and bridge abutments. 1913. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008; 29 (04) 232-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Newman MG, Takei H, Carranza FA, Klokkevold PR. Newman and Carranza's Clinical Periodontology. Saunders; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Mattoo K, Garg R, Bansal V. Designing the occlusion for a single tooth implant in a compromised occlusion. J Med Sci Clin Res 2014; 2: 2996-3000
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Mattoo K, Minocha T, Rathi N. An 2/2 implant overdenture. J Clin Res 2020; 3: 1-3
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Rathi N, Jain KA, Mattoo K. Placing an implant fixture during ongoing orthodontic treatment. SSRG-IJMS. 2019; 6 (11) 19-21
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117 (5S): e1-e105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mombelli A, Hashim D, Cionca N. What is the impact of titanium particles and biocorrosion on implant survival and complications? A critical review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (Suppl. 18) 37-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Spiekermann H, Jansen VK, Richter EJ. A 10-year follow-up study of IMZ and TPS implants in the edentulous mandible using bar-retained overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10 (02) 231-243
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Guo T, Gulati K, Arora H, Han P, Fournier B, Ivanovski S. Race to invade: Understanding soft tissue integration at the transmucosal region of titanium dental implants. Dent Mater 2021; 37 (05) 816-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Safioti LM, Kotsakis GA, Pozhitkov AE, Chung WO, Daubert DM. Increased levels of dissolved titanium are associated with peri-implantitis - a cross-sectional study. J Periodontol 2017; 88 (05) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stein JM, Conrads G, Abdelbary MMH. et al. Antimicrobial efficiency and cytocompatibility of different decontamination methods on titanium and zirconium surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; 34 (01) 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yilmaz B, Gilbert AB, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Displacement of implant abutments following initial and repeated torqueing. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30 (05) 1011-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Duraisamy R, Krishnan CS, Ramasubramanian H, Sampathkumar J, Mariappan S, Navarasampatti Sivaprakasam A. Compatibility of nonoriginal abutments with implants: evaluation of microgap at the implant-abutment interface, with original and nonoriginal abutments. Implant Dent 2019; 28 (03) 289-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric analysis of the strength in the “Toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009; 58 (1-2): 9-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gao J, Min J, Chen X. et al. Effects of two fretting damage modes on the dental implant–abutment interface and the generation of metal wear debris: an in vitro study. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2021; 44 (03) 847-858
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fama F, Cicciu M, Sindoni A. et al. Maxillofacial and concomitant serious injuries: an eight-year single center experience. Chin J Traumatol 2017; 20 (01) 4-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS. et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003; 82 (03) 232-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4 (03) 241-247
    Google Scholar
  • 20 McCartney J. Intraoral connection of individual abutment attachments for an osseointegrated implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66 (06) 799-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 May KB, Edge MJ, Russell MM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. The precision of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77 (05) 497-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sutton J, Saunders WP. Effect of various irrigant and autoclaving regimes on the fracture resistance of rubber dam clamps. Int Endod J 1996; 29 (05) 335-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Eliaz N. Corrosion of metallic biomaterials: a review. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (03) 407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Meto A, Conserva E, Liccardi F, Colombari B, Consolo U, Blasi E. Differential efficacy of two dental implant decontamination techniques in reducing microbial biofilm and re-growth onto titanium disks in vitro. Appl Sci (Basel) 2019; 9 (15) 3191
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mattoo KA. A simple technique to align attachment components in implant supported mandibular overdenture. Int J Res Med Sci Technol 2014; 1 (01) 6-8
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Baldini N. et al. Patient-centered rehabilitation of single, partial, and complete edentulism with cemented- or screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis: The First Osstem Advanced Dental Implant Research and Education Center Consensus Conference 2017. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 617-626
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cervino G, Meto A, Fiorillo L. et al. Surface treatment of the dental implant with hyaluronic acid: an overview of recent data. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (09) 4670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jain S, Mattoo K, Khalid I. et al. A study of 42 partially edentulous patients with single-crown restorations and implants to compare bone loss between crestal and subcrestal endosseous implant placement. Med Sci Monit 2023; 29: e939225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fiorillo L, Meto A, Cicciù M. Bioengineering applied to oral implantology, a new protocol: “Digital Guided Surgery”. Prosthesis 2023; 5 (01) 234-250
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Goyal N, Kaur R. Effect of various implant surface treatments on osseointegration-a literature review. Ind J Dent Sci 2012;4(01):
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Park JH, Olivares-Navarrete R, Baier RE. et al. Effect of cleaning and sterilization on titanium implant surface properties and cellular response. Acta Biomater 2012; 8 (05) 1966-1975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Porwal A, Al Moaleem MM, Adawi HA. et al. Bibliographic analysis and evaluation of the mesh keywords in the journal of prosthodontics: implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. Technol Health Care 2023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Roth S, Feichtinger J, Hertel C. Characterization of Bacillus subtilis spore inactivation in low-pressure, low-temperature gas plasma sterilization processes. J Appl Microbiol 2010; 108 (02) 521-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Assiri AYK, Saafi J, Al-Moaleem MM, Mehta V. Ferrule effect and its importance in restorative dentistry: a literature review. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2022; 29 (04) e69-e82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Keller JC, Draughn RA, Wightman JP, Dougherty WJ, Meletiou SD. Characterization of sterilized CP titanium implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5 (04) 360-367
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Young FA. Future directions in dental implant materials research. J Dent Educ 1988; 52 (12) 770-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Vezeau PJ, Koorbusch GF, Draughn RA, Keller JC. Effects of multiple sterilization on surface characteristics and in vitro biologic responses to titanium. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996; 54 (06) 738-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hall J, Neilands J, Davies JR, Ekestubbe A, Friberg B. A randomized, controlled, clinical study on a new titanium oxide abutment surface for improved healing and soft tissue health. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (Suppl. 01) 55-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Joda T. Combined tooth-implant-supported telescopic prostheses in a midterm follow-up of > 2 years. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26 (06) 536-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Mahajan B, Sethi S, Swarnakar A, Hazarika P, Pandey S, Kumar P. Impact of novel dental implant surface modifications on osseo-integration and early healing. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2023; 30 (16) 786-792
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Fiorillo L. Fi-Index: a new method to evaluate authors Hirsch-Index reliability. Publ Res Q 2022; 38 (03) 465-474
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Fiorillo L, Cicciù M. The use of Fi-Index tool to assess per-manuscript self-citations. Publ Res Q 2022; 38 (04) 684-692
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar