Get access
Clinical Oral Implants Research

Mechanical resistance of screwless morse taper and screw-retained implant-abutment connections

Authors

  • Cihan Sadi Ugurel,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
    • Corresponding Author:

      Cihan Sadi Ugurel

      Department of Prosthodontics

      Faculty of Dentistry

      Istanbul University

      2nd Floor 34093

      Capa/Fatih/Istanbul

      Turkey

      Tel.: +90 (0) 212 414 20 20 - 30383

      Fax: +90 (0) 212 525 35 85

      e-mail: csugurel@hotmail.com

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Martin Steiner,

    1. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Gul Isik-Ozkol,

    1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Omer Kutay,

    1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Matthias Kern

    1. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Objective

The screwless morse taper (SMT) implant-abutment connection is an alternative to conventional external or internal screw-retained (ISR) connections. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate mechanical resistance of the SMT connection and to compare it with three different ISR connections.

Materials and Methods

Four implant systems were tested in this study: SMT system; Tasarimmed Octo (Istanbul, Turkey), ISR systems; Straumann Bone Level (Basel, Switzerland), Biohorizons Internal (Birmingham, AL, USA), and Dentsply Friadent Xive (Mannheim, Germany). Overall, 64 specimens with stylized single crowns were prepared: 32 for dynamic loading (DL) and 32 for static loading (SL). DL was carried out using a chewing simulator with 120 N at 1.75 Hz for 1.2 × 106 cycles, and SL was performed with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min with an angulation of 30°. Cycles until failure from DL and fracture/bending loads at SL were recorded. Statistical analyses were made with Dunn's multiple comparison.

Results

Median cycles until failure in DL were as follows: Octo 86,354 (24,810–153,875), Straumann 1,200,000 (1,156,618–1,200,000), Biohorizons 539,719 (437,224–858,732), Xive 139,411 (139,411–139,411). Median fracture/bending loads in Newton at SL were as follows: Octo 429.6 (404.5–482.7), Straumann 574.6 (544.6–629.9), Biohorizons 548.7 (532.9–567.3), Xive 431.5 (412.5–520.5). There were significant differences between the implant systems under both loading conditions (P ≤ 0.05) revealing that the Octo implant system's SMT connection showed significantly lower cycles to failures and lower fracture/bending loads compared with the ISR connections of the Straumann and Biohorizons implant systems. However, there was no significant difference compared with the Xive implant system.

Conclusion

The mechanical resistance of the screwless morse taper implant system is lower than that of the ISR implant systems that might result in more frequent clinical complications.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary