Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 427–432 | Cite as

Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection—in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration

  • Sönke Harder
  • Birka Dimaczek
  • Yaha Açil
  • Hendrik Terheyden
  • Sandra Freitag-Wolf
  • Matthias KernEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Microleakage has been discussed as a major contributing factor for inflammatory reactions at the implant-abutment connection. In previous studies, the tightness against corpuscular bodies (viable bacteria) has been successfully investigated under static and dynamic conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the tightness against endotoxins of two implant systems (AstraTech and Ankylos) with conical internal connections under static conditions. The inner parts of eight implants of each system were inoculated with endotoxin. Implants were screwed together with the respective abutments and stored under isostatic conditions in a supernatant of pyrogen-free water for 168 h. Supernatant samples were taken after 5 min, 24 h, 72 h, and 168 h, and endotoxin contamination was determined by the amebocyte-lysate test. Only one implant in the AstraTech group showed no sign of endotoxin contamination after 168 h, while the other implants showed contamination after varying storage times, respectively. The implants in the Ankylos group showed endotoxin contamination after only 5 min of storage in the supernatant solution. The tested internal conical implant-abutment connections appear to be unable to prevent endotoxin leakage. In average, Astra implants showed a higher tightness than Ankylos implants.

Keywords

Microleakage Endotoxin Dental implants In vitro investigation Implant-abutment interface 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the laboratory assistance kindly provided by Gisela Otto (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany) and Jeanette Oberli for her great support in manuscript preparation. This project was supported by a grant from the German Association for Oral Implantology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Implantologie).

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Zipprich H, Weigl P, Lange B, Lauer HC (2007) Erfassung, Ursachen und Folgen von Mikrobewegungen am Implantat-Abutment-Interface. Implantologie 15:31–46Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, Buser D, Mellonig JT, Cochran DL (2003) Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 82:232–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2001) Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 72:1372–1383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besimo CE, Guindy JS, Lewetag D, Meyer J (1999) Prevention of bacterial leakage into and from prefabricated screw-retained crowns on implants in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:654–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, van Steenberghe D (1994) Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Branemark system. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:239–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D (1993) Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 4:158–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 20:875–881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wahl G, Muller F, Schaal KP (1992) The microbial colonization of implant elements made of plastics and titanium. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 102:1321–1326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nair SP, Meghji S, Wilson M, Reddi K, White P, Henderson B (1996) Bacterially induced bone destruction: mechanisms and misconceptions. Infect Immun 64:2371–2380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coelho PG, Sudack P, Suzuki M, Kurtz KS, Romanos GE, Silva NR (2008) In vitro evaluation of the implant abutment connection sealing capability of different implant systems. J Oral Rehabil 35:917–924. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01886.x JOR1886 [pii]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakata T (1994) Destruction of challenged endotoxin in a dry heat oven. J Pharm Sci Technol 48:59–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bang FB (1956) A bacterial disease of Limulus polyphemus. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 98:325–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levin J, Bang FB (1968) Clottable protein in Limulus: its localization and kinetics of its coagulation by endotoxin. Thromb Diath Haemorrh 19:186–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young NS, Levin J, Prendergast RA (1972) An invertebrate coagulation system activated by endotoxin: evidence for enzymatic mediation. J Clin Invest 51:1790–1797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scully MF, Newman YM, Clark SE, Kakkar VV (1980) Evaluation of a chromogenic method for endotoxin measurement. Thromb Res 20:263–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hurley JC (1995) Endotoxemia: methods of detection and clinical correlates. Clin Microbiol Rev 8:268–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ (1997) Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:527–540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt A, Dahlen G, Lindhe J (1996) Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Branemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res 7:90–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Mahony A, MacNeill SR, Cobb CM (2000) Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: a retrospective analysis of failed implants. Quintessence Int 31:249–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gross M, Abramovich I, Weiss EI (1999) Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:94–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jann B, Reske K, Jann K (1975) Heterogeneity of lipopolysaccharides. Analysis of polysaccharide chain lengths by sodium dodecylsulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Eur J Biochem 60:239–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sönke Harder
    • 1
  • Birka Dimaczek
    • 1
  • Yaha Açil
    • 2
  • Hendrik Terheyden
    • 3
  • Sandra Freitag-Wolf
    • 4
  • Matthias Kern
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics, and Dental Materials, School of DentistryUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of DentistryUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryRed Cross HospitalKasselGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Medical StatisticsUniversity Hospital Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  5. 5.KielGermany

Personalised recommendations