Machining Tolerance of Various Implant Systems and their Components

치과용 임플란트 시스템의 기계적 가공오차에 관한 연구

  • Kim, Hyeong-Seob (Department of prosthodontics, School of dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of prosthodontics, School of dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of prosthodontics, School of dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 김형섭 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 권긍록 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 한중석 (서울대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2008.01.15
  • Accepted : 2008.03.25
  • Published : 2008.03.30


Purpose: Misfit of implant components was very important in terms of prosthodontics. they has been linked to prosthetic complications such as screw loosening and fracture. Although there are many results about rotational freedom or machining tolerance between fixture and abutments, the data about domestic implant systems are lacking. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the rotational freedom of domestic external and internal connection implant systems between their fixtures/anlaogs and abutments comparing imported systems. Materials and Methods: Rotational freedom between abutments and fixtures/analogs was investigated by using digitalized rotational angle measuring device. (1) 1 domestic external connection system(Neobiotec) and 2 imported external connection systems(Nobel Biocare, Anthorgyr), (2) 1 domestic internal connection system(Dentium) and 4 imported external connection systems(Nobel Biocare, Anthorgyr, Straumann, Frident Dentsply), and (3) 1 domestic zirconia external connection abutment(ZirAce) were evaluated. Each group has 3 samples. Mean values for each group were analyzed. Results: The differences relative to rotational freedom between domestic and imported implant systems were observed but domestic external connection implant system showed about 2.67 degrees(in case of fixture) and internal connection system showed about 4.3 degrees(in case of fixture). Domestic zirconia abutment showed less than 3 degrees of rotational freedom in a situation where the abutment was connected to an implant fixture egardless of domestic or imported systems. Conclusion: Newly developed digitalized rotational angle measuring device has high measuring resolution. The rotational freedom of domestic implant systems were similar to imported implant systems.


Supported by : 경희대학교


  1. Branemark P.I. Osseointegration and its experimental back ground. J Prosthet Dent 1983:50:397
  2. Daoudi MF, Setchell DJ, Searson LJ. A laboratory investigation of the accuracy of two impression techniques for single-tooth implants. Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):152-8
  3. LaMar FR Jr. Microgap or macrogap: significance of the marginal discrepancy between implant crown and abutment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004 Jun;24(3):207
  4. May KB, Edge MJ, Russell MM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. The precision of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 May;77(5):497-502
  5. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jul-Aug;12 (4):527-40. Erratum in: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997 Sep-Oct;12(5):709
  6. Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Implant-abutment screw joint preload of 7 hex-top abutment systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 May-Jun;16(3):367-77
  7. McGlumphy EA, Mendel DA, Holloway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am. 1998 Jan;42(1):71-89
  8. Cheshire PD, Hobkirk JA. An in vivo quantitative analysis of the fit of Nobel Biocare implant superstructures. J Oral Rehabil. 1996 Nov;23(11): 782-9
  9. Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Measurement of the dimensions and abutment rotational freedom of gold-machined 3i UCLA-type abutments in the as-received condition, after casting with a noble metal alloy and porcelain firing. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Nov;84(5):548-53
  10. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont. 1995 Mar-Apr;8(2):162-78. Erratum in: Int J Prosthodont 1995 May-Jun;8(3):284
  11. Binon PP. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a technique to prevent screw loosening. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Apr;79(4):430-2
  12. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(1):76-94
  13. Kucey BK, Fraser DC. The Procera abutment--the fifth generation abutment for dental implants. J Can Dent Assoc. 2000 Sep;66(8):445-9
  14. Heydecke G, Sierraalta M, Razzoog ME. Evolution and use of aluminum oxide single-tooth implant abutments: a short review and presentation of two cases. Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Sep-Oct;15(5):488-93
  15. Brodbeck U. The ZiReal Post: A new ceramic implant abutment. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15(1): 10-23; discussion 24
  16. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An in vitro evaluation of ZiReal abutments with hexagonal connection: In original state and following abutment preparation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(1):108-114
  17. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An in vitro evaluation of titanium, zirconia and alumina Procera abutments with hexagonal connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(4):575-580
  18. English CE. Externally hexed implants, abutments and transfer devices: a comprehensive overview. Implant Dent 1992;1:273-282