Classıfıcatıons of ımplant abutments and mıcromovement ın fıxed ımplant-supported prostheses: a conceptual framework and clınıcal ımplıcatıons-a revıew

Öz

Implant abutments are crucial components in fixed implant-supported Prostheses, serving as the interface between the implant body and the final prosthetic restoration. Their classification is determined by factors such as connection type, material composition, design, retention mechanism, and manufacturing method. The choice of an appropriate abutment depends on prosthetic requirements, occlusal forces, peri-implant tissue considerations, and patient-specific anatomical features. Understanding these classifications is vital for optimizing the mechanical stability, functional longevity, and aesthetic outcomes, as incorrect abutment selection can lead to biomechanical issues, peri-implantitis, or prosthetic failure. Ongoing advancements in materials and digital workflows continue to enhance the precision and long-term success of implant abutments. Micromovement between the implant and abutment refers to the small relative motion that occurs at the interface during functional loading. This movement is influenced by the implant-abutment connection type, material properties, and mechanical fit. Excessive micromovement can result in complications such as screw loosening, wear at the connection site, microbial infiltration, and eventual prosthetic failure. Internal connections, especially conical or Morse taper designs, typically exhibit less micromovement and offer greater stability compared to external connections. Advances in CAD/CAM technology and implant design have contributed to reducing micromovement, improving clinical outcomes, and enhancing the longevity and biological integration of implant-supported restorations. Managing micromovement effectively is essential for ensuring the long-term success of implant- supported prostheses.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dental abutment
• dental ımplant-abutment design
• dental ımplants
• dental prosthesis
• ımplant-supported

Sabı̇t ı̇mplant desteklı̇ protezlerde ı̇mplant abutment sınıflamaları ve mı̇kro-hareketlı̇lı̇k: kavramsal çerçeve ve klı̇nı̇k yansımalar üzerı̇ne derleme

Öz

İmplant abutmentları, sabit implant destekli protezlerde kritik bileşenler olup, implant gövdesi ile nihai protez restorasyonu arasında bir ara yüz işlevi görür. Sınıflandırmaları, bağlantı tipi, malzeme bileşimi, tasarım, tutuculuk mekanizması ve üretim yöntemi gibi faktörlere dayanır. Uygun bir abutment seçimi, protez gereksinimleri, oklüzal kuvvetler, peri-implant doku durumu ve hasta spesifik anatomik özelliklere bağlıdır. Bu sınıflamaların anlaşılması, mekanik stabilite, fonksiyonel uzun ömür ve estetik sonuçların optimize edilmesi için hayati öneme sahiptir, çünkü yanlış abutment seçimi biyomekanik sorunlara, periimplantitis veya protez başarısızlığına yol açabilmektedir. Malzeme ve dijital iş akışlarındaki gelişmeler, implant abutmentlarının hassasiyetini ve uzun vadeli başarısını artırmaya devam etmektedir. İmplant ile abutment arasındaki mikro-hareketlilik, fonksiyonel yükleme sırasında ara yüzeyde meydana gelen küçük rölatif hareket anlamına gelmektedir. Bu hareket, implant-abutment bağlantı tipi, malzeme özellikleri ve mekanik uyumdan etkilenmekle beraber aşırı mikro-hareketlilik, vida gevşemesi, bağlantı alanında aşınma, mikrobiyal infiltrasyon ve nihayetinde protez başarısızlığına yol açabilmektedir. İnternal bağlantılar, özellikle konik veya Morse taper tasarımları, genellikle daha az mikro-hareketlilik sergilemekte ve eksternal bağlantılara göre daha fazla stabilite sunmaktadır. CAD/CAM teknolojisi ve abutment tasarımındaki gelişmeler, implant-abutment arasındaki bu hareketi minimalize etmeyi ve klinik sonuçları iyileştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bununla birlikte implant destekli sabit protezlerin biyolojik entegrasyonunu geliştirmeyi de hedeflemektedir. Keza, mikro- hareketliliğin etkin bir şekilde yönetilmesi, implant destekli sabit protezlerin uzun vadeli başarısının sağlanması ve klinik performansının sürdürülebilirliği açısından kritik bir faktördür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• diş dayanakları
• dental ı̇mplant-dayanak tasarımı
• diş ı̇mplantları
• diş protezi
• ı̇mplant destekli

Kaynakça

1. Shah RM, Aras MA, Chitre V. Implant-abutment Selection: A Literature Review. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res. 2014;5(2):43-49.
2. Kalpana D, Nadira JS, Naila P, Iti B. Implant abutments: A review. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2020;6(2):310-314.
3. Karunagaran S, Paprocki GJ, Wicks R, Markose S. A review of implant abutments-abutment classification to aid prosthetic selection. J Tenn Dent Assoc. 2013;93(2):18-24.
4. Gamborena I, Sasaki Y, Blatz MB. Transmucosal abutments in the esthetic zone: Surgical and prosthetic considerations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(1):148-157.
5. Tang K, Luo ML, Zhou W, Niu LN, Chen JH, Wang F. The integration of peri- implant soft tissues around zirconia abutments: Challenges and strategies. Bioact Mater. 2023;27:348-361.
6. Terzioğlu H, Öztürk B. İmplant-Abutment Özelliklerinin Tedavinin Başarısındaki Etkisi. Turkiye Klinikleri J Prosthodont-Special Topics. 2015;1(2):23-29.
7. Lin WS, Harris BT, Morton D. The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(3):187-191.
8. Chokaree P, Poovarodom P, Chaijareenont P, Yavirach A, Rungsiyakull P. Biomaterials and Clinical Applications of Customized Healing Abutment—A Narrative Review. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2022;13(4):291.

9. Suphangul S, Pujarern P, Rokaya D, Kanchanasobhana C, Rungsiyakull P, Chaijareenont P. Comparison of Plaque Accumulation Between Titanium and PEEK Healing Abutments. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2024;15(11):334.
10. Hernández AE, Kinalski MA, de Andrade Leão OA, Bergoli CD, Faot F, Dos Santos MBF. Assessment of Surgical and Radiographic Parameters for Abutment Height Selection: A Prospective Study with 1-Year Follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37(5):1037-1043.
11. Laleman I, Lambert F. Implant connection and abutment selection as a predisposing and/or precipitating factor for peri-implant diseases: A review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(5):984 12.Türkoğlu P, Köse A, Şen D. Abutment Selection for Anterior Implant- Supported Restorations. IntechOpen, 2019. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.80965
12. Pitta J, Todorovıć A, Fehmer V, Strasding M, Sailer I. Technical complication of a zirconia multiple-unit FDP supported by titanium base abutments - case report on a bonding failure and treatment alternative. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(4):518-527.
13. Schäfer T, Mätzener KJ, Jung RE, Özcan M, Hjerppe J. Load-bearing capacity of screw-retained fixed dental prostheses made of monolithic zirconia on different abutment designs and abutment-free implant connection. J Dent. 2025;153:105561.
14. Deliverska E, Kirilova J, Kirov D. Study of individual healing abutment with standard impression and fully digital CAD-CAM healing abutment. Medinform. 2023;10:1665-1670.
15. Benakatti V, Sajjanar JA, Acharya AR. Dental implant abutments and their selection-a review. J Evolution Med Dent Sci. 2021;10(35):3053-3059.
16. Kucey BK, Fraser DC. The Procera abutment--the fifth generation abutment for dental implants. J Can Dent Assoc. 2000;66(8):445-449.
17. Fiorillo L, D’amico C, Ronsivalle V, Cicciù M, Cervino G. Single Dental Implant Restoration: Cemented or Screw-Retained? A Systematic Review of Multi-Factor Randomized Clinical Trials. Prosthesis. 2024;6(4):871-886. 19.Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent. 2010;19(1):8-15.
18. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CHF, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23 Suppl 6:163-201.
19. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Brägger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):141-151.
20. Halim FC, Pesce P, De Angelis N, Benedicenti S, Menini M. Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. J Clin Med, 2022;11(17):5052. 23.Piermatti J. Considerations in Abutment Selection. Dent Today. 2017;36(3):74-75.
21. Castillo R, Ata-Ali J. The clinical use of computer aided designed/computer aided manufactured titanium nitride coated implant abutments: Surgical and prosthetic considerations—A case series. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(7):1008-1021.
22. de Holanda Cavalcanti Pereira AK, de Oliveira Limirio JPJ, Cavalcanti do Egito Vasconcelos B, Pellizzer EP, Dantas de Moraes SL. Mechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia abutments at the implant-abutment interface: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(3):420-426.
23. Hu M, Chen J, Pei X, Han J, Wang J. Network meta-analysis of survival rate and complications in implant-supported single crowns with different abutment materials. J Dent. 2019;88:103115.
24. Pesce P, Del Fabbro M, Menini M, et al. Effects of abutment materials on peri- implant soft tissue health and stability: A network meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(4):506-517.
25. Huang YS, Huang HH. Effects of clinical dental implant abutment materials and their surface characteristics on initial bacterial adhesion. Rare Met. 2019;38:512-519.
26. Prestipino V, Ingber A. Esthetic high-strength implant abutments. Part I. J Esthet Dent. 1993;5(1):29-36.
27. Alqurashi H, Khurshid Z, Syed Auy, Rashid Habib S, Rokaya D, Zafar MS. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK): An emerging biomaterial for oral implants and dental prostheses. J Adv Res. 2020;28:87-95.
28. Zol SM, Alauddin MS, Said Z, et al. Description of Poly(aryl-ether-ketone) Materials (PAEKs), Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) for Application as a Dental Material: A Materials Science Review. Polymers (Basel). 2023;15(9):2170.
29. Beretta M, Poli PP, Pieriboni S, et al. Peri-implant soft tissue conditioning by means of customized healing abutment: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(18):3041.
30. Kaleli N, Saraç D, Külünk S, Öztürk Ö. Effect of different restorative crown and customized abutment materials on stress distribution in single implants and peripheral bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(3):437–45.
31. Mishra S, Chowdhary R. PEEK materials as an alternative to titanium in dental implants: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(1):208– 222.
32. Ortega-Martínez J, Delgado LM, Ortiz-Hernández M, et al. In vitro assessment of PEEK and titanium implant abutments: Screw loosening and microleakage evaluations under dynamic mechanical testing. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(3):470-476.
33. Dawson JH, Hyde B, Hurst M, Harris BT, Lin WS. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), a framework material for complete fixed and removable dental prostheses: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:867–872.
34. Albrektsson T, Jacobsson M. Bone-metal interface in osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;57(5):597-607.
35. Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski JB, Carr AB, Naert I, Wennerberg A. Quality of dental implants. Int Dent J. 2003;53(6 Suppl 2):409-443.
36. Diaz P, Vizoso B, Lopez-Suarez C, Gonzalo E, Mosaddad SA, Suarez MJ. Evaluation of the influence of connection configuration on the implant- abutment interface vertical misfit of original milled titanium and laser-sintered cobalt-chromium abutments. Clin Oral Investig. 2025;29(1):72.
37. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1), 76–94.
38. Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. The Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(1), 19–31.
39. Meng JC, Everts JE, Qian F, Gratton DG. Influence of connection geometry on dynamic micromotion at the implant-abutment interface. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(6):623-625.
40. Seol HW, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK, Kim SK. Axial displacement of external and internal implant-abutment connection evaluated by linear mixed model analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1387-1399.
41. Binon PP. The spline implant: design, engineering, and evaluation. Int J Prosthodont. 1996;(5):419-433.
42. Wee AG, Mcglumphy EA. Prosthodontic Complications of Spline Dental Implants. Implant Dentistry. 203;12(2):151-159.
43. Muley N, Prithviraj DR, Gupta V. Evolution of External and Internal Implant to Abutment Connection. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res. 2012;3(3):122-129.
44. Camps-Font O, Rubianes-Porta L, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Jung Re, Gay- Escoda C, Figueiredo R. Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(3):327-340.
45. Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Prandtner O, Stimmelmayr M, Güth JF. Metal-free implant-supported single-tooth restorations. Part II: Hybrid abutment crowns and material selection. Quintessence Int. 2019;50(4):260-269.
46. Pjetursson BE, Zarauz C, Strasding M, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;18:160-183.
47. Bagnasco F, Menini M, Pesce P, Gibello U, Carossa M, Pera F. Evaluation of Internal and External Hexagon Connections in Immediately Loaded Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Multicenter Randomized Split-Mouth Controlled Trial With a 6-Year Follow-Up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025;27: e13416.
48. Tang CB, Liu SY, Zhou GZ, et al. Nonlinear finite element analysis of three implant–abutment interface designs. Int J Oral Sci. 2012;4(2):101–108.
49. Saidin S, Abdul Kadir MR, Sulaiman E, Abu Kasim NH. Effects of different implant-abutment connections on micromotion and stress distribution: prediction of microgap formation. J Dent. 2012;40(6):467-474.
50. Kharsan V, Bandgar V, Mirza A, Jagtiani K, Dhariwal N, Kore R. Comparative Evaluation of Three Abutment-Implant Interfaces on Stress Distribution in and Around Different Implant Systems: A Finite Element Analysis. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10(4):590-594.
51. Vinhas AS, Aroso C, Salazar F, López-Jarana P, Rios-Santos JV, Herrero- Climent M. Review of the Mechanical Behavior of Different Implant- Abutment Connections. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8685.
52. Ugurel CS, Steiner M, Isik-Ozkol G, Kutay O, Kern M. Mechanical resistance of screwless morse taper and screw-retained implant-abutment connections. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(2):137-142.
53. Bagegni A, Weihrauch V, Vach K, Kohal R. The Mechanical Behavior of a Screwless Morse Taper Implant-Abutment Connection: An In Vitro Study. Materials (Basel). 2022;15:3381.
54. Schmitt CM, Nogueira-Filho G, Tenenbaum HC, et al. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(2):552-574.
55. Alla I, Scarano A, Sinjari B, Xhajanka E, Lorusso F. Peri-Implant Bone Stability Around Tapered Implant Prosthetic Connection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Different Cone Morse and Conometric Implants Angle Contact and Coupling Interface Designs. Applied Sciences. 2025;15(3):1237.
56. Jäger M, Zilkens C, Zanger K, Krauspe R. Significance of nano- and microtopography for cell-surface interactions in orthopaedic implants. Biomed Biotechnol. 2007;2007(8):69036.
57. Scarano A, Valbonetti L, Degidi M, et al. Implant-Abutment Contact Surfaces and Microgap Measurements of Different Implant Connections Under 3- Dimensional X-Ray Microtomography. Implant Dent. 2016;25(5):656-662.
58. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006;26(1):9-17.
59. Hürzeler M, Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel HC. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments: preliminary data from a prospective study [published correction appears in J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Oct;66(10):2195-6]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(7 Suppl 1):33-39.
60. Thiyaneswaran N, Rahul B, Surbala D, Mutum SD, Sahana S. Micro gap at Implant abutment Connections-A Systematic Review. J. Pharm. Sci. & Res. 2023;15(2):999-1004.
61. Liu Y, Wang J. Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;83:153-160.
62. Kumar L, Singla S, Rehan S, Mehta M, Sharma J, Dhanday S. Comparative Analysis of Microbial Leakage in Implant Recess of Three Different Internal Implant Abutment Connections: An In Vitro Study. Dent J Adv Stud. 2023;11(3):102–105.
63. Alves DC, Carvalho PS, Martinez EF. In vitro microbiological analysis of bacterial seal at the implant-abutment interface using two morse taper implant models. Braz Dent J. 2014;25:48-53.