Evaluation of Removal Force of Abutments in Frictional Dental Implants- In Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.2077Keywords:
Frictional dental implants, abutment removal force, implant retention, tapered abutment, in vitro studyAbstract
Background: Frictional dental implants rely on precise fit and surface contact between the abutment and implant for stability and retention. The removal force required to detach the abutment is a critical parameter influencing implant longevity, prosthetic stability, and ease of retrieval. This in vitro study aims to evaluate and compare the removal force of different abutment designs in frictional dental implants.
Materials and Methods: A total of 30 frictional dental implants were divided into three groups (n=10) based on abutment design: Group A (tapered abutments), Group B (parallel-walled abutments), and Group C (hybrid abutments). Each abutment was inserted with a standardized force and subjected to cyclic loading for 500,000 cycles to simulate masticatory forces. A universal testing machine was used to measure the force required to remove each abutment. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test with a significance level of p<0.05.
Results: The mean removal force (N) for Group A was 125.4 ± 5.6, Group B was 98.7 ± 4.3, and Group C was 110.2 ± 4.9. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference among the groups (p<0.05), with Group A showing the highest removal force, followed by Group C and Group B. The results suggest that abutment design significantly affects the retention of frictional dental implants.
Conclusion: Tapered abutments exhibited the highest removal force, indicating superior retention in frictional dental implants. Parallel-walled abutments demonstrated the lowest retention, which may facilitate easier retrieval but could compromise long-term stability. Hybrid abutments provided a balance between retention and retrievability. Further studies are recommended to assess clinical implications and long-term performance.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Binon PP. Implants and components: Entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):76-94.
Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: Biomechanical study of flat and conical abutment connections. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(1):33-41.
Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: An 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(4):519-26.
Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12(4):527-40.
Zipprich H, Weigl P, Lange B, Lauer HC. Micromovements at the implant-abutment interface: Measurement, causes, and consequences. Implant Dent. 2007;16(3):302-8.
Kano SC, Binon PP, Curtis DA. A classification system for implant abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(5):617-25.
Sutter F, Schwibbe A, Sutter W. Retention forces between implants and superstructures with conical internal connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(5):512-7.
Jemt T, Laney WR, Harris D, Henry PJ, Krogh PH, Polizzi G, et al. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: A 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6(1):29-36.
Stüker RA, Teixeira ER, Beck JCP, Costa NP. Preload and torque loss of abutment screws under simulated masticatory loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(6):218-23.
Dittmer S, Dittmer MP, Kohorst P, Jendras M, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Influence of the interface geometry on the biomechanical behavior of dental implant systems. J Dent Res. 2011;90(8):887-92.
Norton MR. The influence of abutment surface roughness on the retention of cemented crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82(1):13-6.
Rignon-Bret C, Caplain S, Perez F, Boitelle P, Bonnet F, De Mello G. Implant-abutment connections: Influence of the geometry and its consequences. J Dent Res. 2013;92(5):72-80.
Schwarz MS, Higginbottom FL. Performance of fixed partial dentures on osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(2):153-60.
Dittmer MP, Kohorst P, Jendras M, Stiesch M, Borchers L. Influence of the implant-abutment connection on bone stress levels. J Dent Res. 2010;89(2):192-7.
Al-Johany SS, Al Amri MD, Alsaeed S, Alalola B. Dental implant abutments: An overview of their types, materials, and selection. Int J Dent. 2017;2017: 453-65.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
