Evaluation of Sealing Efficacy and Removal Convenience of Sealing Materials for Implant Abutment Screw Access Holes

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2022 Aug 25

PMID 36008833

Authors

Huangjun Zhou

Sixian Ye

Xingyu Lyu

Hao Feng

Min Liu

Cai Wen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Sealing materials are used to fill abutment screw access holes (SAH) to prevent microleakage and protect the central screws in oral implant restoration. However, thus far, no consensus has been reached on sealing material selection. In this study, a comparison of the sealing efficacy and removal convenience of different sealing materials for cement-retained implant restoration was conducted.

Methods: Various sealing materials were classified into five groups, namely, gutta-percha (GP), temporary restorative paste (TRP), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape, and onlay resin (OR), and 35 sets of analog-abutments were allocated into five groups of seven specimens. A sealing efficacy test was conducted using a modified dye-penetration method, in which a lower absorbance indicated better sealing efficacy. For the removal-convenience test, the materials were removed from each SAH after solidification, and the retrieval time was recorded.

Results: On days 1 and 10, PTFE exhibited the highest absorbance value with significant differences compared to the other groups. On day 30, TRP and PTFE showed significantly higher absorbance values than GP, VPS, and OR, but no significant difference was detected between TRP and PTFE (p = 0.424). The absorbance values of TRP and PTFE from days 1, 10, and 30 showed significant intragroup differences, while those of the other groups did not. In terms of the removal convenience on days 1, 10, and 30, VPS achieved the best performance, followed by PTFE, OR, TRP, and GP.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this experiment, VPS and OR showed better sealing efficacy against microleakage and a more convenient removal than the other materials; thus, VPS and OR are recommended for clinical use.

Citing Articles

Novel Esthetic Technique for Restoring Dental Implant Access Holes: A Case Report.

Seki K, Shiratsuchi K, Toki A, Kamimoto A, Hagiwara Y Dent J (Basel). 2025; 13(2).

PMID: 39996927 PMC: 11853855. DOI: 10.3390/dj13020053.

Factors Influencing the Screw Stability of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: An In Vitro Study.

Bishti S, Alsagher M, Homa M, Wolfart S, Tuna T Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(3).

PMID: 39942172 PMC: 11818324. DOI: 10.3390/ma18030506.

Bacterial Flora in Screw-Fixed Superstructures with Different Sealing Materials: A Comparative Clinical Trial.

Yamaguchi K, Munakata M, Ishii K, Uesugi T Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(2).

PMID: 38391681 PMC: 10886632. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11020195.

References

Gherlone E, Cappare P, Pasciuta R, Grusovin M, Mancini N, Burioni R . Evaluation of resistance against bacterial microleakage of a new conical implant-abutment connection versus conventional connections: an in vitro study. New Microbiol. 2016; 39(1):49-56. View

Raab P, Alamanos C, Hahnel S, Papavasileiou D, Behr M, Rosentritt M . Dental materials and their performance for the management of screw access channels in implant-supported restorations. Dent Mater J. 2017; 36(2):123-128. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-049. View

Carrotte P . Endodontics: Part 8. Filling the root canal system. Br Dent J. 2004; 197(11):667-72. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811855. View

Siadat H, Arshad M, Mahgoli H, Fallahi B . Microleakage Evaluation at Implant-Abutment Interface Using Radiotracer Technique. J Dent (Tehran). 2017; 13(3):176-183. PMC: 5376544. View

Sahin C, Ayyildiz S . Correlation between microleakage and screw loosening at implant-abutment connection. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6(1):35-8. PMC: 3942525. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.1.35. View

Alves D, Carvalho P, Elias C, Vedovatto E, Martinez E . In vitro analysis of the microbiological sealing of tapered implants after mechanical cycling. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(9):2437-2445. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1744-0. View

Cavalcanti A, Fonseca F, Zago C, Junior R, Franca F . Efficacy of Gutta-Percha and Polytetrafluoroethylene Tape to Microbiologically Seal the Screw Access Channel of Different Prosthetic Implant Abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 18(4):778-87. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12344. View

do Nascimento C, Barbosa R, Issa J, Watanabe E, Ito I, de Albuquerque Junior R . Use of checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization to evaluate the internal contamination of dental implants and comparison of bacterial leakage with cast or pre-machined abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(6):571-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01663.x. View

Sattar M, Patel M, Alani A . Clinical applications of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape in restorative dentistry. Br Dent J. 2017; 222(3):151-158. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.110. View

10.

Carlos L, C Carlos N, Sm Karina L, K Sunil B, E Carlos P, G Olga L . Comparative study of bacterial microfiltration in the implant-abutment interface, with straight and conical internal connections, in vitro. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021; 7(6):1014-1024. PMC: 8638306. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.439. View

11.

Queiroz D, Hagee N, Lee D, Zheng F . The behavior of a zirconia or metal abutment on the implant-abutment interface during cyclic loading. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(2):211-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.09.023. View

12.

De Kok I, Duqum I, Katz L, Cooper L . Management of Implant/Prosthodontic Complications. Dent Clin North Am. 2019; 63(2):217-231. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.004. View

13.

Park S, Lee Y, Kim Y, Yu S, Bae J, Cho H . Microleakage of different sealing materials in access holes of internal connection implant systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108(3):173-80. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60143-7. View

14.

Vishwanath V, Rao H . Gutta-percha in endodontics - A comprehensive review of material science. J Conserv Dent. 2019; 22(3):216-222. PMC: 6632621. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_420_18. View

15.

Hamalian T, Nasr E, Chidiac J . Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont. 2011; 20(2):153-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x. View

16.

Jervoe-Storm P, Jepsen S, Johren P, Mericske-Stern R, Enkling N . Internal bacterial colonization of implants: association with peri-implant bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 26(8):957-963. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12421. View

17.

Baixe S, Tenenbaum H, Etienne O . [Microbial contamination of the implant-abutment connections: Review of the literature]. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale. 2016; 117(1):20-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.revsto.2015.11.004. View

18.

Baggi L, Di Girolamo M, Mirisola C, Calcaterra R . Microbiological evaluation of bacterial and mycotic seal in implant systems with different implant-abutment interfaces and closing torque values. Implant Dent. 2013; 22(4):344-50. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182943062. View

19.

Huettig F, Klink A, Kohler A, Mutschler M, Rupp F . Flowability, Tear Strength, and Hydrophilicity of Current Elastomers for Dental Impressions. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(11). PMC: 8199482. DOI: 10.3390/ma14112994. View

20.

Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H . Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent. 2017; 11(1):135-140. PMC: 5379828. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_340_16. View