Oral İmplantolojide Farklı Abutment Sistemlerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Geleneksel Yöntemlerden Yenilikçi Simansız Çözümlere

Abstract

Oral implantoloji alanındaki uygulamalar, diş eksiklerinin fonksiyonel ve estetik gereksinimlerini karşılamak amacıyla günümüzde sıklıkla kullanılmakta ve her geçen gün gelişmeye devam etmektedir. İmplant destekli sabit protezlerde kullanılan üst yapı bileşeni olan abutmentlar, mekanik dayanıklılık, biyouyumluluk ve estetik gereksinimler açısından kritik önem taşımaktadır. Son yıllarda geliştirilen modern sistemler, geleneksel protezlerde görülen komplikasyonları azaltmayı hedeflemektedir. Özellikle peri-implant mukozitis ve peri-implantitis riskini en aza indirmeye yönelik simansız sistemler ön plana çıkmaktadır. Bu derlemede, implant destekli sabit protezlerde kullanılan farklı abutment sistemleri biyomekanik, biyolojik ve estetik yönden incelenmiştir. Farklı abutment sistemleri, materyalleri ve restorasyonların retansiyon tipine göre farklı kullanım alanı bulan abutment yapıları ele alınarak özellikle yenilikçi sistemlerin güncel literatüre göre sunduğu avantajlar değerlendirilmiştir. Güncel yaklaşımlar etkin tedavi seçenekleri sunmakla birlikte klinik başarısı, sınırlamaları ve uygulanabilirliğini daha ayrıntılı değerlendirmek için gelecekte yapılacak çalışmalar önem taşımaktadır.

Keywords

• Abutment materyalleri
• Simansız sistemler
• İmplant-abutment dizaynı
• İmplant destekli protez

Evaluation of Different Abutment Systems in Oral Implantology: From Conventional Methods to Innovative Cementless Solutions

Abstract

Applications in the field of oral implantology are increasingly utilized to meet the functional and aesthetic requirements of tooth deficiencies and continue to evolve. Abutments, as superstructure components in implant-supported fixed prostheses, play a critical role in terms of mechanical durability, biocompatibility, and aesthetic outcomes. Modern systems developed in recent years aim to reduce complications observed in conventional prostheses. In particular, cementless systems have gained prominence to minimize the risk of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. This review examines different abutment systems used in implant-supported fixed prostheses from biomechanical, biological and aesthetic perspectives. Various abutment structures, categorized based on materials and retention types, are discussed, with a particular focus on the advantages offered by innovative systems according to the current literature. Although current approaches offer effective treatment options, future studies are important to further evaluate their clinical success, limitations and applicability.

Keywords

• Abutment materials
• Cementless systems
• Implant-abutment design
• Implant-supported prosthesis

Ethical Statement

In this study, due to the study being conducted as a review article, Ethics Committee Permission was not required.

References

1. 1. Mao Z, Beuer F, Wu D, Zhu Q, Yassine J, Schwitalla A, et al. Microleakage along the implant–abutment interface: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2023;9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00494-y
2. 2. 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. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022;11(17):5052. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11175052
3. 3. Choi S, Kang YS, Yeo I-SL. Influence of Implant–Abutment Connection Biomechanics on Biological Response: A Literature Review on Interfaces between Implants and Abutments of Titanium and Zirconia. Prosthesis. 2023;5(2):527-38. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis5020036
4. 4. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. International Journal of oral and maxillofacial implants. 2011;26(5):1102.
5. 5. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84-98. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1
6. 6. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. British Dental Journal. 2006;201(8):501-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157
7. 7. Lee J-H, Yang S-E, Lee J, Lee S-Y. Influence of Luting Materials and Methods and the Restoration Surface on the Amount of Cement Remnants in Implant Restorations. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2019;45(4):301-7. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00283
8. 8. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x

9. 9. Korkmaz IH, Kul E. Investigation of the Type of Angled Abutment for Anterior Maxillary Implants: A Finite Element Analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2022;31(8):689-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13462
10. 10. Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Özcan M, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Influence of Ceramic Materials on Biomechanical Behavior of Implant Supported Fixed Prosthesis with Hybrid Abutment. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019;27(2):76-82. https://doi.org/10.1922/ejprd_01829tribst07
11. 11. Sailer I, Philipp A, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Hämmerle CHF, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2009;20(s4):4-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01787.x
12. 12. Linkevicius T, Vaitelis J. The effect of zirconia or titanium as abutment material on soft peri‐implant tissues: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015;26(S11):139-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12631
13. 13. Totou D, Naka O, Mehta SB, Banerji S. Esthetic, mechanical, and biological outcomes of various implant abutments for single-tooth replacement in the anterior region: a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2021;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00370-7
14. 14. Vechiato-Filho AJ, Pesqueira AA, De Souza GM, dos Santos DM, Pellizzer EP, Goiato MC. Are Zirconia Implant Abutments Safe and Predictable in Posterior Regions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):233-44. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4349
15. 15. Hamedirad F, Ghaffari T, Mehanfar N. Evaluation of stress distribution in bone and three-unit fixed implant-supported prostheses with zirconia and titanium abutments: A 3D finite element analysis. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2018;12(4):258-63. https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.040
16. 16. Andersson B, Taylor A, Lang BR, Scheller H, Schärer P, Sorensen JA, Tarnow D. Alumina ceramic implant abutments used for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 1- to 3-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14(5):432-8.
17. 17. Anniwaer A, Yin Z, Zhu J, Huang C. Effect of abutment type and creep behavior on the mechanical properties of implant restorations in the anterior region: A finite element analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2024;33(S1):93-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13816
18. 18. Adolfi D, Tribst JPM, Adolfi M, Dal Piva AMO, Saavedra GSFA, Bottino MA. Lithium Disilicate Crown, Zirconia Hybrid Abutment and Platform Switching to Improve the Esthetics in Anterior Region: A Case Report. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:31-40. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S234980
19. 19. Tajti P, Solyom E, Czumbel LM, Szabó B, Fazekas R, Németh O, et al. Monolithic zirconia as a valid alternative to metal-ceramic for implant-supported single crowns in the posterior region: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2024;132(5):881-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.05.006
20. 20. Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel Zirconia Materials in Dentistry. Journal of Dental Research. 2018;97(2):140-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345177374
21. 21. Lee J-H, Jang HY, Lee SY. Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained vs. Cementless Screw-Retained. Materials. 2021;14(10):2666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14102666
22. 22. Choi H, Hong M-H. Implant Restoration Using a New Cementless Screw-Retained Type Prosthetic (TDP) System: Case Series. Prosthesis. 2023;5(2):368-77. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis5020027
23. 23. Aalaei S, Rajabi Naraki Z, Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Shahrokhi Rad A. Stress distribution pattern of screw-retained restorations with segmented vs. non-segmented abutments: A finite element analysis. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2017;11(3):149-55. https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2017.027
24. 24. Rangert B, Gunne J, Glantz PO, Svensson A. Vertical load distribution on a three-unit prosthesis supported by a natural tooth and a single Brånemark implant. An in vivo study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1995;6(1):40-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060105.x
25. 25. Arnold C, Hey J, Setz JM, Boeckler AF, Schweyen R. Retention force of removable partial dentures with different double crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(4):1641-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2224-x
26. 26. Hong SJ, Lee H, Lee YY, Kwon KR. Retention force and stress distribution analysis of the cementless double crown-type implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(4):626-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.050
27. 27. Lee H, Park S, Kwon K-R, Noh G. Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: A finite element study. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2019;11(6):341. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.6.341
28. 28. Pesce P, Canullo L, Grusovin MG, de Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Pera P. Systematic review of some prosthetic risk factors for periimplantitis. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):346-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.002
29. 29. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants, (II). Etiopathogenesis. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 1998;106(3):721-64. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-6-.x