Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2026

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap
Stefania C Kano1, Paul P Binon, Donald A Curtis
1Department of Preventative and Restorative Dental Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, USA. stekano@uol.com.br
Purpose:
A large microgap at the implant-abutment interface has been reported to result in adverse effects, including screw loosening, abutment rotation, and abutment fracture. However, a standardized classification of the implant-abutment interface has not been established. The purposes of this investigation were (1) to propose a classification system based on the horizontal and vertical microgap of the implant-abutment interface and (2) to compare the implant-abutment interface in 4 groups of abutments.
Materials And Methods:
Forty-eight randomly selected external hexagonal implants were paired with (1) machined titanium abutments, (2) premachined palladium abutments cast-on with palladium alloy, (3) plastic burnout abutments cast with nickel chromium alloy, and (4) plastic burnout abutments cast with cobalt chromium alloy. A comparison of the horizontal and vertical microgaps at the implant-abutment interface was completed at 8 locations on each specimen to the nearest micrometer using an optical microscope with a magnification of 150x. Group means and significant differences between groups were determined by analysis of variance and Tukey multiple-comparisons post-hoc analysis. P < .05 was the threshold for statistical significance.
Results:
There was no significant difference between groups with respect to vertical misfit. For horizontal misfit, machined titanium abutments presented significantly higher horizontal misfit compared to other groups (P < .001). Premachined cast-on abutments had significantly higher horizontal misfit than cast NiCr abutments (P < .001). In the proposed classification system, 23% of all sites measured at the implant-abutment interface had an ideal relationship, 34% had a horizontal discrepancy only, 4% had a vertical discrepancy only, and 39% had both vertical and horizontal discrepancies.
Conclusion:
The proposed implant-abutment classification system demonstrated a way to characterize and compare the microgap at the implant-abutment interface.
