Impact of Dynamic Loading on the Implant-abutment Interface Using a Gas-enhanced Permeation Test In Vitro

Anas Al-Jadaa 1, *, Thomas Attin 1, Timo Peltomäki 2, Christian Heumann 3, Patrick Roger Schmidlin 1
1 Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plat-tenstrasse 11, 8032 Zürich, Switzerland
2 Oral and Maxillofacial Unit, Tampere University Hospital. Tampere, Finland
3 Department of Statistics, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 304
Abstract HTML Views: 137
PDF Downloads: 73
Total Views/Downloads: 514
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 160
Abstract HTML Views: 100
PDF Downloads: 59
Total Views/Downloads: 319

Creative Commons License
© Al-Jadaa et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zürich, Switzerland; Tel: 0041 44 63 43284; Fax: 0041 44 63 44308 E-mail:


Purpose : To assess implant leakage under static conditions as well as during and after dynamic loading. Materials and methods : Implants (Astra Tech (A), Biomet 3i (B) and Nobel Biocare (C)) were evaluated for leakage (n=8/group). Testing to assess the gas pressure change over time (hPa/min) and infiltrated fluid volume, was performed in a Gas Enhanced Permeation Test (GEPT) to qualify embedding. Implant apexes were then drilled, abutments were mounted and resin build-ups were fabricated. GEPT was reassessed. Samples were afterward mounted in a computer-controlled masticator while tested to bacterial leakage, they were daily observed for turbidity. Samples were then reassessed using GEPT. Dunnett's and Fisher's exact tests were utilized to compare implant and to analyze bacterial leakage. Results : Significant differences in GEPT values were shown after loading (p=0.034). Leakage resistance was best for B when compared to C (p=0.023). Samples with higher GEPT values demonstrated earlier bacterial leakage, occurring after 1 or 2 days (A=4, B=0, C=6) and showing favorability for implant system B (p=0.009). Conclusion : Implants leaking under static conditions had increased potential for bacterial leakage under dynamic conditions. As strongly correlating to sophisticated analytical methods, GEPT is a promising technique for assessing the overall implant system leakage resistance.

Keywords: Dynamic loading, implants leakage, static implants leakage.