Implant systems

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Don Saklad - 06 Jan 2006 15:55 GMT

What's the story of regarding the Bicon implant system?...
http://www.bicon.com/news/n_publications.html

Did it really succeed where the other implant systems
failed?...

Here's a study about five different implant systems...

1: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Nov-Dec;20(6):875-81. Links
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=16392344&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

In vitro evaluation of bacterial leakage along the
implant-abutment interface of different implant systems.

Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Bossmann K, Kern M.
steinebrunner@proth.uni-kiel.de

Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics
and Dental Materials, Dental School,
Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany.

PURPOSE: Microbial leakage and colonization between implants
and their abutments may cause inflammatory reactions in the
peri-implant tissues.

This study evaluated microbial leakage at the implant-abutment
interface with a new in vitro model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacterial leakage was tested during
dynamic loading in a 2-axis chewing simulator.

The authors theorized that dynamic loading would decrease the
stability of the implant-abutment connections and thereby lead to
bacterial penetration along the gap.

Five different implant systems with 8 standard implant-abutment
combinations for single molar crowns were tested.

The internal aspects of the implants were inoculated with a
bacterial suspension and connected to the superstructure with the
recommended torque.

The specimens were immersed in a nutrient solution and loaded
with 1,200,000 cycles of 120 N in the chewing simulator.

RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P < or = .05)
between implant systems with respect to number of chewing cycles
until bacterial penetration were found.

DISCUSSION: The degree of penetration in a specific implant
system presumably is a multifactorial condition dependent on the
precision of fit between the implant and the abutment, the degree
of micromovement between the components, and the torque forces
used to connect them.

CONCLUSION: It was concluded that the newly developed test model
is a sensitive tool for the detection of differences between
current implant systems with respect to their ability to prevent
bacterial penetration at the implant-abutment interface under
dynamic loading conditions.

PMID: 16392344 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=16392344&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Reply to this Message

letsconnect - 06 Jan 2006 20:28 GMT

> What's the story of regarding the Bicon implant system?...
> http://www.bicon.com/news/n_publications.html
>
> Did it really succeed where the other implant systems
> failed?...

Where does it say on that page that "the other implant systems failed"

:-s ?

Apparently it's pretty good though:
http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?p=12137#post12137

Reply to this Message

Sue - 06 Jan 2006 21:31 GMT

> What's the story of regarding the Bicon implant system?...
> http://www.bicon.com/news/n_publications.html
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> PMID: 16392344 [PubMed - in process]
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=16392344&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Hi Don and letsconnect,

The stated study purpose is unclear, IMHO. The conclusions seem to
indicate this study was evaluating the test model, not necessarily the
implant systems.

I read another abstract (see below) where Bicon (I presume) tested the
integrity of their "implant-abutment bacterial seal" in vitro without
any loading conditions. This study demostrated that their locking taper
system provides a hermetic seal.

Can you elaborate a bit more on the study you are pointing out? What
systems were compared?

Thanks,
Sue

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):732-7.
Related Articles, Links

In vitro evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: the locking
taper system.

Dibart S, Warbington M, Su MF, Skobe Z.

Department of Periodontology and Oral Biology, Boston University School
of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02118, USA. sdibart@bu.edu

PURPOSE: To test in vitro whether the seal provided by the locking
taper used in the implant-abutment connection was capable of preventing
the invasion of oral microorganisms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five wide-body implants (5 x 11 mm) and
25 abutments were divided into 2 groups for a 2-phase experiment. The
first phase tested the ability of the seal to shield the implant well
from outside bacteria; the second phase tested the ability of the seal
to prevent bacteria present in the implant well from seeping out. For
phase 1, 10 implant-abutment units were immersed in a bacterial broth
for 24 hours. The abutments were then separated from the implants and
bacterial presence was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. In
phase 2, the tested abutments were inoculated with a droplet of soft
agar bacterial gel and assembled with the implant. These units were
incubated in a sterile nutrient broth for 72 hours, sampled, and plated
to assess bacterial presence.

RESULTS: In phase 1, no bacteria were detected in any of the implant
wells. In phase 2, no bacteria were detected in the nutrient broth or
on the agar plates at 72 hours.

DISCUSSION: In implants where a microgap is present, microbial leakage
could lead to inflammation and bone loss; thus, it is important to
minimize bacterial presence in and around the the implant-abutment
junction.

CONCLUSION: The seal provided by the locking taper design has been
demonstrated to be hermetic with regard to bacterial invasion in vitro.

Publication Types:
· Evaluation Studies

Reply to this Message