Comparative evaluation of the sealing performance of implant sealants: an experimental study

Relevance. Long-term clinical experience with implant-supported prosthetic treatment has confirmed its effectiveness in the rehabilitation of patients with partial or complete tooth loss. One of the key factors contributing to late implant complications and reduced implant service life is microleakage at the implant–abutment interface. Sealing of the implant connection has therefore been proposed as a preventive measure aimed at eliminating the technical microgap at the interface.

Materials and methods. The sealing performance of two implant sealants was evaluated after cyclic compressive fatigue loading. The study compared a sealant commonly used in Russia, Sildent (sample 1), with its foreign analogue, Gapseal (sample 2). The mechanical stability of the implant–abutment assemblies under cyclic loading was tested using a servohydraulic testing machine. Each assembly was loaded once at a frequency of 25 Hz with forces ranging from 130 to 380 N for 240,000 cycles, simulating approximately one year of mastication. Sealing ability was assessed using a fluorescent dye penetration assay with a 10% sodium fluorescein (Uranin A) solution. Fluorescein concentration was measured spectrophotometrically.

Results. Marked differences in fluorescein release kinetics were observed between the tested samples. In sample 1, dye concentration was 6.5-fold higher after 1 h of exposure, 3.4-fold higher after 12 h, 6-fold higher after 24 h, 4-fold higher after 48 h, and approximately fivefold higher after 312 h compared with sample 2.

Conclusion. The results suggest different mechanisms controlling dye release in the evaluated sealants and support the need for further studies with an increased number of repetitions to confirm the findings statistically.

1. Badrak E.Yu., Yakovlev A.T., Mikhalchenko D.V., Mikhalchenko A.V., Yarygina E.N. Сlinical substantiation of application the method of sealing the internal interface of the implant. Clinical dentistry. 2016;3(79):46–49 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26644603

2. Eroshin V.A., Arutyunov S.D., Arutyunov A.S., Unanyan V.E., Boyko A.V. Mobility of dental implants: devices and diagnostic methods. Russian Journal of Biomechanics. 2009;2(13):34–48 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12380166

3. Zekiy A.O. Salivary markers of inflammation and osteoresorption in evaluating dental implant adaptation. Journalof Volgograd State Medical University. 2015;4(56):63–66 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25035834

4. Zekiy A.O., Zekiy O.E. Pathogenic microflora and status of periimplantation tissues in patients with fixed dentures relying on intraosseous implants due to a sealing application. Institute of Dentistry. 2018;1(78):37–39 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=34964783

5. Ivanov S.Yu., Solodkaya D.V., Kozlovsky V.S., Solodkiy V.G., Muraev A.A. The study of the implant-abatement connection tightness in LIKO, LIKO-M, and NANO-LIKO implant systems. Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2012;6:222 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23220557

6. Kramar V.O., Klimova T.N., Kramar V.S., Pestov A.Yu., Chetvertnova G.A. The Role of Bacteriolactia in the Formation of the Oral Microecosystem. International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. 2012;(2):75-77 (In Russ.). Available from: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=2124

7. Martynov D.V., Salamov M.Ya., Olesova V.N., Losev F.F., Ivanov A.S., Zaslavsky R.S., Morozov D.I.Рrecision comparison of standard and individual titanium abutments. Russian Journal of Dental Implantology. 2020;3-4(49-50):4-11 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46305975

8. Muzychina A.A., Barkova A.V., Barkov K.A., Muzychina A.V. Efficiency of Gap Seal use as prevention in periimplant mucositis and periiplantitis dental patient with secondary edentulous at all implant prostethetic rehabilitation stages. National Association of Scientists (NAU). 2015;3-5(8):8 (In Russ.). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/effektivnost-primeneniya-germetika-gap-seal-v-profilaktike-periimplantnogo-mukozita-i-dentalnogo-periimplantita-u-bolnyh-s

9. Sirak S.V., Sletov A.A., Gandylyan K.S., Dagueva D.V. Direct dental implantation in patients with included dentition defects. Medical Bulletin of the North Caucasus. 2011;1:51-54 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=15627861

10. Trezubov V.N., Bulycheva E.A., Chikunov S.O. Features and consequences of immediate implant prosthetics using extended prosthetic structures (review). Clinical dentistry. 2018;1(85):34-38 (In Russ.). Available from: doi 10.37988/1811-153X_2018_1_34

11. Trezubov V.N., Mishnev M.L., Parshin Yu.V., Modestov V.S., Yarekha D.I. Еxperimental study of the distribution of elasticity in the peri-implant bone during prosthetics. Russian Journal of Biomechanics. 2023;3(27):10–23 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54976899

12. Trezubov V.N., Rozov R.A., Mishnev M.L., Parshin Yu.V. Аuthor’s approaches and methods for optimizing implant prosthodontics in elderly patients. Upper Volga Medical Journal. 2023;2(22):3-7 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54191038

13. Khafizova F.A., Mirgazizov M.Z., Khafizov I.R., Mirgazizov M.Z., Khafizov R.G. Application of a colorimetric method or evaluating the implant-abutment interface as a prophylaxis of peri-implantitis. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2020;1-2(47-48):11-15 (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46322617

14. Khafizova F.A., Mirgazizov M.Z., Khafizov R.G., Khafizov I.R. Мicrobiological assessment of the effectiveness of sealing the connecting site of the intraosseous implant with the abutment. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2020;1-2(47-48):4-10 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?edn=mrasxo

15. Yakovlev A.T., Badrak E.Yu., Mikhalchenko D.V., Grishina M.A., Demyanova O.B. А study of microflora at dental implant-abutment interface. Volgogradskij nauchno-medicinskij zhurnal. 2015;1:47 (In Russ.). Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23715307

16. Berberi A, Maroun D, Kanj W, Amine EZ, Philippe A. Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant-abutment Interface. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;11(17):907-913. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1952

17. Berberi A, Tehini G, Rifai K, Bou Nasser Eddine F, El Zein N, Badran B, Akl H. In vitro evaluation of leak-age at implant-abutment connection of three implant systems having the same prosthetic interface using rhodamine B. Int J Dent. 2014;2014:1-7. doi: 10.1155/2014/351263

18. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Açil Y, Terheyden H, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection--in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;4(14):427-432. doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0317-x.

19. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M. Marginal adaptation and fit of adhesive ceramic inlays. J Dent. 1993;1(21):39-46. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(93)90048-u.

20. Lorenzoni F.C., Coelho P.G., Bonfante G., Carvalho R.M., Silva N.R., Suzuki M., Silva T.L., Bonfante E.A. Sealing Capability and SEM Observation of the Implant-Abutment Interface. Int. J. Dent. 2011;2011:1-6. doi: 10.1155/2011/864183.

21. Molinero-Mourelle P, Cascos-Sanchez R, Yilmaz B, Lam WYH, Pow EHN, Del Río Highsmith J, Gómez-Polo M. Effect of Fabrication Technique on the Microgap of CAD/CAM Cobalt-Chrome and Zirconia Abutments on a Conical Connection Implant: An In Vitro Study. Materials (Basel). 2021;9(14):2348. doi: 10.3390/ma14092348