Dental implants have undoubtedly become the most utilized option for replacing missing natural teeth, owing to their excellent durability, strength, and esthetics. Despite their excellent success rate, a few cases of implant failures have also been observed by dentists. Various studies have shown that the implant-abutment interface is a critical factor in determining the durability and success of two-piece dental implant-supported prostheses,. This article discusses various factors which influence the longevity and clinical service life of dental implants in terms of the implant-abutment interface.
What is the Implant-Abutment Interface?
The two-piece implant system consists of an endosteal part, the implant, and the mucosal part which is the abutment. The mucosal portion is usually attached to the endosteal part after the osseointegration has taken place. However, when the abutment is screwed or attached to the implant, a gap inevitably exists between them, which has been reported in the literature to be about 40-60 µm. This gap allows micromovements between these components which can lead to implant failure due to uneven loading, friction, bone resorption, and bacterial adhesion.
The Importance of Implant-Abutment Interface
Research has shown that the quality and precision of the implant-abutment interface determines the stability and strength of this joint. Let’s take a look at the consequences of an excessive gap formed between the interface of the abutment and the implant.
- Abutment Overloading – when there is the formation of a gap between the implant and abutment, the joint becomes laterally and rotationally unstable. As a result, not only are there higher chances of implant loosening, but excessive movement at the interface can lead to accelerated bone loss as a result of friction and overloading of the implant due to irregular positioning.
- Fracture/ Screw Loosening – as discussed earlier, when there is an unwanted gap or movement at the implant-abutment interface, there are higher chances of implant screw loosening. Also, uneven forces can also lead to the fracture of the prosthesis.
- Bacterial Adhesion and Peri-implantitis – as a result of an excessive gap between the implant and the abutment, bacteria can penetrate and adhere to the interface. This can lead to implant failure as a result of peri-implantitis.
So, What’s the Solution?
Now that we know that the implant-abutment interface is an essential factor in determining the success of dental implants, we will discuss how this interface can be optimized.
Implant-Abutment Interface Geometry
Previously, several externally hexed implants were used to restore a complete arch by using a metal bar which linked them together. Afterward, internally hexed implants were introduced in which the mating components are located inside the implant body. This design helps in improved stress transfer and balance, thereby minimizing implant movement and marginal bone loss, and enhances fracture resistance. Similarly, the use of conical implant-abutment interface has also been shown to improve load distribution. Keeping this in view, we at GP implants manufacture very high-quality implants with a conical interface and an internal hex.
Preventing Micromovement and Microcap
The quality and precision of the implant-abutment interface have been recognized as one of the most critical factors which can cause the development of micrographs. This mainly depends upon the type of abutment chosen for creating the connection. Two types of abutment connections are most commonly used, the butt-joint and the conical connection. Generally, sharp angles vertices at the abutment connections cause higher stresses, wear and bone loss, leading to the microgap formation. To overcome this problem, GP implants design dental implants with minimum microgap between the implant and the abutment. This results in reduced micromovement and improves the stability of the interface and prolongs clinical service life.
Preventing Bacterial Adhesion
Another factor which can lead to implant failure is the penetration of bacteria into the microgap created between the abutment and implant. These bacteria not only can cause peri-mucositis, but they can also lead to peri-implantitis, which has a very high rate of causing implant failure due to bone loss and micromovement. At GP implants, we have eliminated this problem by ensuring high-precision and accuracy of our manufactured implants, so that they have minimal microgap and they can withstand heavy forces without excessive movement or fracture.
Why Choose GP Implants?
Our equipment is always up-to-date and meets the latest technological standards which prevents the microgap formation or implant movement. We are proud to have indigenous high-tech research equipment which helps us in optimizing each aspect of our implant assembly process. The result is the manufacturing of high-quality, FDA approved dental implants at very affordable rates. We also offer international delivery through our web-store and same-day dispatching services. Wherever you are, you can get our products in a matter of 3 to 21 business days.
So, what are waiting for? Try our cutting-edge, safe and cost-effective products today. We are sure that you will love them.
 Zhang, Xiao, et al. “Effects of Dental Implant-abutment Interfaces on the Reliability of Implant Systems.” MATEC Web of Conferences. Vol. 77. EDP Sciences, 2016.
 Steinebrunner, Lars, et al. “Implant–abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants.” Clinical oral implants research 19.12 (2008): 1276-1284.
 Broggini, Nina, et al. “Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface.” Journal of dental research 85.5 (2006): 473-478.
 Michalakis, Konstantinos X., et al. “The effect of different implant-abutment connections on screw joint stability.” Journal of Oral Implantology 40.2 (2014): 146-152.
 Sailer, Irena, et al. “Fracture strength of zirconia implant abutments on narrow diameter implants with internal and external implant abutment connections: A study on the titanium resin base concept.” Clinical oral implants research29.4 (2018): 411-423.