Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review aimed to evaluate if the internal connection is more efficient than the external connection and its associated influencing factors.

Methods

A specific question was formulated according to the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO): Is internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? An electronic search of the MEDLINE and the Web of Knowledge databases was performed for relevant studies published in English up to November 2013 by two independent reviewers. The keywords used in the search included a combination of “dental implant” and “internal connection” or “Morse connection” or “external connection.” Selected studies were randomized clinical trials, prospective or retrospective studies, and in vitro studies with a clear aim of investigating the internal and/or external implant connection use.

Results

From an initial screening yield of 674 articles, 64 potentially relevant articles were selected after an evaluation of their titles and abstracts. Full texts of these articles were obtained with 29 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Morse taper connection has the best sealing ability. Concerning crestal bone loss, internal connections presented better results than external connections. The limitation of the present study was the absence of randomized clinical trials that investigated if the internal connection was more efficient than the external connection.

Conclusions

The external and internal connections have different mechanical, biological, and esthetical characteristics. Besides all systems that show proper success rates and effectiveness, crestal bone level maintenance is more important around internal connections than external connections. The Morse taper connection seems to be more efficient concerning biological aspects, allowing lower bacterial leakage and bone loss in single implants, including aesthetic regions. Additionally, this connection type can be successfully indicated for fixed partial prostheses and overdenture planning, since it exhibits high mechanical stability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lin MI, Shen YW, Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ (2013) A retrospective study of implant-abutment connections on crestal bone level. J Dent Res 92:202S–207S. doi:10.1177/0022034513510322

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Lezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L (2010) Prospective clinical evaluation of 307 single-tooth morse taper-connection implants: a multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:394–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coppedê AR, Bersani E, de Mattos MG, Rodrigues RC, Sartori IA, Ribeiro RF (2009) Fracture resistance of the implant-abutment connection in implants with internal hex and internal conical connections under oblique compressive loading: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 22:283–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freitas-Júnior AC, Almeida EO, Bonfante EA, Silva NR, Coelho PG (2013) Reliability and failure modes of internal conical dental implant connections. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:197–202. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02443.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Machado LS, Bonfante EA, Anchieta RB, Yamaguchi S, Coelho PG (2013) Implant-abutment connection designs for anterior crowns: reliability and failure modes. Implant Dent 22:540–545. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e31829f1f2d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Almeida EO, Freitas AC Jr, Bonfante EA, Marotta L, Silva NR, Coelho PG (2013) Mechanical testing of implant-supported anterior crowns with different implant/abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:103–108. doi:10.11607/jomi.2443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ribeiro CG, Maia MLC, Scherrer SS, Cardoso AC, Wiskott HWA (2011) Resistance of three implant-abutment interfaces to fatigue testing. J Appl Oral Sci 19:413–420

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ricomini Filho AP, Fernandes FS, Straioto FG, da Silva WJ, Del Bel Cury AA (2010) Preload loss and bacterial penetration on different implant-abutment connection systems. Braz Dent J 21:123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goiato MC, Bannwart LC, Pesqueira AA, Dos Santos DM, Haddad MF, Santos MR, Castilho PU (2014) Immediate loading of overdentures: systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 18:259–264. doi:10.1007/s10006-013-0421-6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A (2012) Peri-implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. J Clin Periodontol 39:1097–1113. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01930.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernández AJ, Alonso-González R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez, Peñarrocha-Diago M (2013) Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:1192–1200. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koo KT, Lee EJ, Kim JY, Seol YJ, Han JS, Kim TI, Lee YM, Ku Y, Wikesjö UM, Rhyu IC (2012) The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. J Periodontol 83:1104–1109. doi:10.1902/jop.2011.110456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser UC (2002) Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors—a comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:542–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ding TA, Woody RD, Higginbottom FL, Miller BH (2003) Evaluation of the ITI Morse taper implant/abutment design with an internal modification. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:865–872

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mangano C, Mangano F, Shibli JA, Tettamanti L, Figliuzzi M, d'Avila S, Sammons RL, Piattelli A (2011) Prospective evaluation of 2,549 Morse taper connection implants: 1- to 6-year data. J Periodontol 82:52–61. doi:10.1902/jop.2010.100243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mangano C, Bartolucci EG (2001) Single tooth replacement by Morse taper connection implants: a retrospective study of 80 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:675–680

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D (2004) AICRG, Part II: crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol 30:134–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mangano C, Mangano F, Piatelli A, Lezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L, Mangano A (2008) Single-tooth Morse taper connection implants after 1 year of functional loading: a multicentre study on 302 patients. Eur J Oral Implantol 1:305–315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mangano C, Mangano F, Shibli JA, Ricci M, Sammons RL, Figliuzzi M (2011) Morse taper connection implants supporting "planned" maxillary and mandibular bar-retained overdentures: a 5-year prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1117–1124. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02079.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD (1997) A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:173–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mangano F, Mangano C, Ricci M, Sammons RL, Shibli JA, Piattelli A (2012) Single-tooth Morse taper connection implants placed in fresh extraction sockets of the anterior maxilla: an aesthetic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:1302–1307. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02307.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pessoa RS, Muraru L, Júnior EM, Vaz LG, Sloten JV, Duyck J, Jaecques SV (2010) Influence of implant connection type on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants—CT-based nonlinear, three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12:219–234. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00155.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Balik A, Karatas MO, Keskin H (2012) Effects of different abutment connection designs on the stress distribution around five different implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 38(Spec No):491–496. doi:10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Segundo RM, Oshima HM, da Silva IN, Burnett LH Jr, Mota EG, Silva LL (2009) Stress distribution of an internal connection implant prostheses set: a 3D finite element analysis. Stomatologija 11:55–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LG, de Melo Nishioka LN (2009) External hexagon and internal hexagon in straight and offset implant placement: strain gauge analysis. Implant Dent 18:512–520. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bcc621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M (2006) In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil 33:75–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jaworski ME, Melo AC, Picheth CM, Sartori IA (2012) Analysis of the bacterial seal at the implant-abutment interface in external-hexagon and Morse taper-connection implants: an in vitro study using a new methodology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:1091–1095

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tripodi D, Vantaggiato G, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, DʼErcole S (2012) An in vitro investigation concerning the bacterial leakage at implants with internal hexagon and Morse taper implant-abutment connections. Implant Dent 21:335–339. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e31825cd472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Teixeira W, Ribeiro RF, Sato S, Pedrazzi V (2011) Microleakage into and from two-stage implants: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:56–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Koutouzis T, Wallet S, Calderon N, Lundgren T (2011) Bacterial colonization of the implant-abutment interface using an in vitro dynamic loading model. J Periodontol 82:613–618. doi:10.1902/jop.2010.100415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Bossmann K, Kern M (2005) In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of different implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20:875–881

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tesmer M, Wallet S, Koutouzis T, Lundgren T (2009) Bacterial colonization of the dental implant fixture-abutment interface: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 80:1991–1997. doi:10.1902/jop.2009.090178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nascimento C, Miani PK, Pedrazzi V, Gonçalves RB, Ribeiro RF, Faria AC, Macedo AP, De Albuquerque RF Jr (2012) Leakage of saliva through the implant-abutment interface: in vitro evaluation of three different implant connections under unloaded and loaded conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:551–560

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kielbassa AM, Martinez-de Fuentes R, Goldstein M, Arnhart C, Barlattani A, Jackowski J (2009) Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: interim one-year results. J Prosthet Dent 101:293–305. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60060-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Arlin ML (2002) Analysis of 435 screw-vent dental implants placed in 161 patients: software enhancement of clinical evaluation. Implant Dent 11:58–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Akça K, Cehreli MC, Iplikçioğlu H (2003) Evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of the implant-abutment complex of a reduced-diameter morse-taper implant. A nonlinear finite element stress analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:444–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Iezzi G, Leghissa GC, Quaranta A, Tortora P, Piattelli A (2005) A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments. J Oral Implantol 31:269–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Novaes AB Jr, de Oliveira RR, Muglia VA, Papalexiou V, Taba M (2006) The effects of interimplant distances on papilla formation and crestal resorption in implants with a morse cone connection and a platform switch: a histomorphometric study in dogs. J Periodontol 77:1839–1849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. de Oliveira RR, Novaes AB Jr, Taba M Jr, Papalexiou V, Muglia VA (2009) Bone remodeling adjacent to Morse cone-connection implants with platform switch: a fluorescence study in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:257–266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y, Matsumura H (2008) Marginal fit and microgaps of implant-abutment interface with internal anti-rotation configuration. Dent Mater J 27:29–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bell M, Bosco AF, de Melo LG, Richter EJ (2008) Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1141–1147. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01564.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bell M, de Melo LG, Bosco AF (2010) Influence of microgap location and configuration on peri-implant bone morphology in nonsubmerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:540–547

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bosco AF, de Melo LG (2011) Influence of microgap location and configuration on radiographic bone loss around submerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:941–946

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Leite CM, de Melo LG, Bosco AF (2011) Influence of microgap location and configuration on radiographic bone loss in nonsubmerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Prosthodont 24:445–452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M (2008) Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1276–1284. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01581.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bernardes SR, de Araujo CA, Neto AJ, Simamoto Junior P, das Neves FD (2009) Photoelastic analysis of stress patterns from different implant-abutment interfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:781–789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Novaes AB Jr, Barros RR, Muglia VA, Borges GJ (2009) Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on papilla formation and crestal resorption: a clinical and radiographic study in dogs. J Oral Implantol 35:18–27. doi:10.1563/1548-1336-35.1.18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Barros RR, Novaes AB Jr, Muglia VA, Iezzi G, Piattelli A (2010) Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on peri-implant bone remodeling of adjacent and immediately loaded Morse cone connection implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1(21):371–378. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01860.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rodríguez-Ciurana X, Vela-Nebot X, Segalà-Torres M, Rodado-Alonso C, Méndez-Blanco V, Mata-Bugueroles M (2009) Biomechanical repercussions of bone resorption related to biologic width: a finite element analysis of three implant-abutment configurations. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 29:479–487

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nishioka RS, Nishioka LN, Abreu CW, de Vasconcellos LG, Balducci I (2010) Machined and plastic copings in three-element prostheses with different types of implant-abutment joints: a strain gauge comparative analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 18:225–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jesus Tavarez RR, Bonachela WC, Xible AA (2011) Effect of cyclic load on vertical misfit of prefabricated and cast implant single abutment. J Appl Oral Sci 19:16–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LG, de Melo Nishioka GN (2011) Comparative strain gauge analysis of external and internal hexagon, Morse taper, and influence of straight and offset implant configuration. Implant Dent 20:e24–e32. doi:10.1097/ID.0b013e318211fce8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pieri F, Aldini NN, Marchetti C, Corinaldesi G (2011) Influence of implant-abutment interface design on bone and soft tissue levels around immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:169–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Freitas AC Jr, Bonfante EA, Rocha EP, Silva NR, Marotta L, Coelho PG (2011) Effect of implant connection and restoration design (screwed vs. cemented) in reliability and failure modes of anterior crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 119:323–330. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00837.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pessoa RS, Coelho PG, Muraru L, Marcantonio E Jr, Vaz LG, Vander Sloten J, Jaecques SV (2011) Influence of implant design on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants: computed tomography-based nonlinear three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:1279–1287

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD (2012) All-on-three delayed implant loading concept for the completely edentulous maxilla and mandible: a retrospective 5-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:1584–1592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Diez JS, Brigagão VC, Cunha L, Neves AC, da Silva-Concilio LR (2012) Influence of diamondlike carbon-coated screws on the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:1055–1060

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Arnhart C, Kielbassa AM, Martinez-de Fuentes R, Goldstein M, Jackowski J, Lorenzoni M et al (2012) Comparison of variable-thread tapered implant designs to a standard tapered implant design after immediate loading. A 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 5:123–136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Freitas AC Jr, Bonfante EA, Martins LM, Silva NR, Marotta L, Coelho PG (2012) Reliability and failure modes of anterior single-unit implant-supported restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:1005–1011. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02269.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tang CB, Liul SY, Zhou GX, Yu JH, Zhang GD, Bao YD, Wang QJ (2012) Nonlinear finite element analysis of three implant- abutment interface designs. Int J Oral Sci 4:101–108

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rack T, Zabler S, Rack A, Riesemeier H, Nelson K (2013) An in vitro pilot study of abutment stability during loading in new and fatigue-loaded conical dental implants using synchrotron-based radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:44–50. doi:10.11607/jomi.2748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kopp S, Behrend D, Kundt G, Ottl P, Frerich B, Warkentin M (2013) Dental implants and immediate loading: multivariate analysis of success factors. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale 114:146–154. doi:10.1016/j.revsto.2013.02.004

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Gehrke SA (2013) Importance of crown height ratios in dental implants on the fracture strength of different connection designs: an in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. doi:10.1111/cid.12165

    Google Scholar 

  64. Teixeira AB, Beja GB, Shimano AC, Macedo AP, Oliscovicz NF, Reis AC (2013) Influence of the ultimate torsion on the geometry of dental implants. Braz Dent J 24:213–217. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201302165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Jorge JR, Barao VA, Delben JA, Assuncao WG (2013) The role of implant/abutment system on torque maintenance of retention screws and vertical misfit of implant-supported crowns before and after mechanical cycling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:415–422. doi:10.11607/jomi.2727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Das Neves FD, Verissimo AG, Da Silva Neto JP, Do Prado CJ, De Araújo CA (2013) Photoelastic stress analysis of different wide implant/abutment interfaces under oblique loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:e39-44. doi:10.11607/jomi.2157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Aracatuba School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), José Bonifácio, 1193, Vila Mendonça, Araçatuba, São Paulo, 16015-295, Brazil

    Marcelo Coelho Goiato, Eduardo Piza Pellizzer, Emily Vivianne Freitas da Silva, Liliane da Rocha Bonatto & Daniela Micheline dos Santos

Authors
  1. Marcelo Coelho Goiato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduardo Piza Pellizzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily Vivianne Freitas da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liliane da Rocha Bonatto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniela Micheline dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Coelho Goiato.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goiato, M.C., Pellizzer, E.P., da Silva, E.V.F. et al. Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 19, 229–242 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-015-0494-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-015-0494-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation