Comparative Analysis of Internal Tapered Implant-Abutment Connections: Evaluating the Morse Effect.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the Morse effect of different internal tapered implant-abutment connections (ITCs) using a pullout test. Implants with different ITCs were selected: Short (Bicon, USA), G1; Novo Colosso (Medens, Brazil), G2; Epkut (SIN, Brazil), G3; Strong SW (SIN, Brazil), G4; Flash (Conexão, Brazil), G5 and Bone Level (Straumann, Switzerland), G6. The respective computer-aided design (CAD) files were loaded into the analysis software to measure each ITC's taper angle and implant-abutment contact area. Six implants from each group were embedded in acrylic resin blocks, and the respective universal abutments were fixed using a mallet (G1) or by applying 20 Ncm of torque (G2 to G6). After 10 minutes, each abutment's retention screw was removed, and the force necessary for abutment rupture was recorded using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The groups were compared using a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test. Spearman's correlation was used to check the correlation of the taper angle and contacting area with the pullout strength. G1, a no-screw abutment with a 3° taper, and G2, a 10° tapered abutment tightened by 20 Ncm, presented the highest pullout strength (P < .05). The increased taper angle of G4, compared to G3, reduced the Morse effect despite their similar implant-abutment contacting areas (P < .05). The G5 and G6 abutments loosened after screw removal and did not exhibit pullout resistance. The closer the tapered angle (r = -.958) and the higher the implant-abutment contact area (r = .880), the higher the pullout strength (P < .001). Within the limits of this study, the Morse effect is different among tapered implant-abutment connections. The closer the tapered angle and the higher the interface area, the higher the Morse effect between the abutment and the implant.

Platelet-rich preparations to improve healing. Part I: workable options for every size practice.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that platelet-rich preparations applied to surgical sites, injuries, or wounds are a safe and effective way to promote soft tissue healing and bone growth. Various protocols have been developed for preparing platelet-rich preparations, with subtle but important differences between them. Unfortunately, only a minority of clinicians use platelet-rich preparations, such as platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin, in their practice, possibly due to confusion about the different methods and their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the different types of preparations are described to help guide the selection of the best method for any size practice. Classic methods generally require large volumes of blood and can be expensive, complicated, and time-intensive. Simpler protocols have been developed recently, which require relatively inexpensive equipment and small blood volumes and, thus, may be more applicable for small clinical practices. Platelet-rich preparations accelerate healing at earlier time points to reduce discomfort and the potential for adverse outcomes, including infection, poor wound closure, and delays in forming strong bone for subsequent procedures (such as implants). However, platelet-rich preparations may also improve long-term outcomes in patients expected to have impaired healing, such as with lifestyle choices (eg, smoking), medications (eg, steroids), diseases (eg, diabetes, osteoporosis, atherosclerosis), and aging, by supplementing the deficient wound environment to restore proper healing. Therefore, both large and small clinical practices would benefit from utilizing platelet-rich preparations to enhance healing in their patients.

Platelet-rich preparations to improve healing. Part II: platelet activation and enrichment, leukocyte inclusion, and other selection criteria.

Multiple platelet-rich preparations have been reported to improve wound and bone healing, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet rich fibrin (PRF). The different methods employed during their preparation are important, as they influence the quality of the product applied to a wound or surgical site. Besides the general protocol for preparing the platelet-rich product (discussed in Part 1 of this review), multiple choices need to be considered during its preparation. For example, activation of the platelets is required for the release and enmeshment of growth factors, but the method of activation may influence the resulting matrix, growth factor availability, and healing. Additionally, some methods enrich leukocytes as well as platelets, but others are designed to be leukocyte-poor. Leukocytes have many important roles in healing and their inclusion in PRP results in increased platelet concentrations. Platelet and growth factor enrichment reported for the different types of platelet-rich preparations are also compared. Generally, TGF-ß1 and PDGF levels were higher in preparations that contain leukocytes compared to leukocyte-poor PRP. However, platelet concentration may be the most reliable criterion for comparing different preparations. These and other criteria are described to help guide dental and medical professionals, in large and small practices, in selecting the best procedures for their patients. The healing benefits of platelet-rich preparations along with the low risk and availability of simple preparation procedures should encourage more clinicians to incorporate platelet-rich products in their practice to accelerate healing, reduce adverse events, and improve patient outcomes.