Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research and Education| Volume 129, ISSUE 3, P433-439, March 2023

Abutment rotational freedom on five implant systems with different internal connections


      Statement of problem

      Information regarding the rotational freedom of internal connection implants is sparse.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the rotational freedom of different internal conical and internal nonconical connections.

      Material and methods

      Thirty implants, 30 straight manufactured standard abutments, and 30 standard abutment screws were obtained for each of the 5 implant systems tested. Three implant systems had indexed internal conical connections with different antirotational geometries: hexagon (Naturall+), cam-groove (ID CAM M), and octagon (Bone Level). Two implant systems had internal nonconical connections with hexagonal antirotational geometry (Tapered Screw-Vent and Seven). The implants were mounted in a steel plate, and a metal reference arm was attached to the abutment. Before tightening the standard abutment screw, a modified torque wrench was used to rotate the abutment clockwise until reaching the clockwise rotational endpoint. This modified torque wrench was connected to the abutment's outer surface. It allowed free access to the standard abutment screw for a second torque wrench, specific to each implant system. The modified torque wrench applied a controlled torque of 5 Ncm, which held the abutment at the clockwise rotational endpoint. The standard abutment screw was then tightened to the manufacturer’s specified torque value with the second torque wrench. Angle value corresponding to the clockwise endpoint was measured microscopically between a fixed reference point on the steel plate and the reference arm. The abutment was then unscrewed and removed. The same procedure was carried out to rotate the abutment counterclockwise and measure the angle value corresponding to the counterclockwise rotational endpoint. The rotational freedom was finally determined from the differences in the angles between the clockwise and counterclockwise rotational endpoints. Rotational freedom angle values were summarized as descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations). The normality test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) was applied, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to isolate the implant system differences from each other (α=.05).


      The lowest mean rotational freedom angles were obtained for Bone Level (conical connection, 0.17 degrees) and Tapered Screw-Vent (nonconical connection, 0.05 degrees). These systems were followed in increasing order by ID CAM M (conical connection, 0.50 degrees), Seven (nonconical connection, 1.98 degrees), and Naturall+ (conical connection, 2.49 degrees). Compared with each other, all implant systems had significant statistical differences in rotational freedom angles (P<.05).


      Significant differences were found among the 5 implant systems. The lowest mean rotational freedom angles were obtained both with a conical connection (Bone Level) and a nonconical connection (Tapered Screw-Vent).
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Pjetursson B.
        • Asgeirsson A.
        • Zwahlen M.
        • Sailer I.
        Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: Comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 308-324
        • Pjetursson B.E.
        • Thoma D.
        • Jung R.
        • Zwahlen M.
        • Zembic A.
        A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 22-38
        • Vandeweghe S.
        • Hawker P.
        • De Bruyn H.
        An up to 12-year retrospective follow-up on immediately loaded, surface-modified implants in the edentulous mandible.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 323-331
        • Nicoll R.J.
        • Sun A.
        • Haney S.
        • Turkyilmaz I.
        Precision of fit between implant impression coping and implant replica pairs for three implant systems.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 37-43
        • Semper-Hogg W.
        • Kraft S.
        • Stiller S.
        • Mehrhof J.
        • Nelson K.
        Analytical and experimental position stability of the abutment in different dental implant systems with a conical implant-abutment connection.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1017-1023
        • Apaza-Bedoya K.
        • Tarce M.
        • Benfatti C.A.M.
        • Henriques B.
        • Mathew M.T.
        • Teughels W.
        • et al.
        Synergistic interactions between corrosion and wear at titanium-based dental implant connections: A scoping review.
        J Periodontal Res. 2017; 52: 946-954
        • Katsoulis J.
        • Takeichi T.
        • Sol Gaviria A.
        • Peter L.
        • Katsoulis K.
        Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature.
        Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 121-138
        • Vogel R.E.
        • Davliakos J.P.
        Spline implant prospective multicenter study: Interim report on prosthetic screw stability in partially edentulous patients.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002; 14: 225-237
        • Binon P.P.
        The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1996; 9: 149-160
        • Khraisat A.
        • Abu-Hammad O.
        • Al-Kayed A.M.
        • Dar-Odeh N.
        Stability of the implant/abutment joint in a single-tooth external-hexagon implant system: Clinical and mechanical review.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004; 6: 222-229
        • Binon P.P.
        Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8: 162-178
        • Binon P.P.
        Evaluation of three slip fit hexagonal implants.
        Implant Dent. 1996; 5: 235-248
        • Davi L.R.
        • Golin A.L.
        • Bernardes S.R.
        • Araujo C.A.
        • Neves F.D.
        In vitro integrity of implant external hexagon after application of surgical placement torque simulating implant locking.
        Braz Oral Res. 2008; 22: 125-131
        • de Barros Carrilho G.P.
        • Dias R.P.
        • Elias C.N.
        Comparison of external and internal hex implants' rotational freedom: A pilot study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18: 165-166
        • Garine W.N.
        • Funkenbusch P.D.
        • Ercoli C.
        • Wodenscheck J.
        • Murphy W.C.
        Measurement of the rotational misfit and implant-abutment gap of all-ceramic abutments.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22: 928-938
        • Kano S.C.
        • Binon P.P.
        • Bonfante G.
        • Curtis D.A.
        The effect of casting procedures on rotational misfit in castable abutments.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22: 575-579
        • 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: 575-580
        • Vigolo P.
        • Fonzi F.
        • Majzoub Z.
        • Cordioli G.
        Evaluation of gold-machined UCLA-type abutments and CAD/CAM titanium abutments with hexagonal external connection and with internal connection.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 247-252
        • Binon P.P.
        • McHugh M.J.
        The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1996; 9: 511-519
        • Feitosa P.C.P.
        • de Lima A.P.B.
        • Silva-Concilio L.R.
        • Brandt W.C.
        • Claro Neves A.C.
        Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test.
        Eur J Dent. 2013; 7: 267-271
        • Cha H.S.
        • Kim Y.S.
        • Jeon J.H.
        • Lee J.H.
        Cumulative survival rate and complication rates of single-tooth implant; focused on the coronal fracture of fixture in the internal connection implant.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40: 595-602
        • Chae S.-W.
        • Kim Y.-S.
        • Lee Y.-M.
        • Kim W.-K.
        • Lee Y.-K.
        • Kim S.-H.
        Complication incidence of two implant systems up to six years: a comparison between internal and external connection implants.
        J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2015; 45: 23-29
        • Lee J.H.
        • Kim D.G.
        • Park C.J.
        • Cho L.R.
        Axial displacements in external and internal implant-abutment connection.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 83-89
        • Gracis S.
        • Michalakis K.
        • Vigolo P.
        • Vult von Steyern P.
        • Zwahlen M.
        • Sailer I.
        Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: A systematic review.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 202-216
        • Jorneus L.
        • Jemt T.
        • Carlsson L.
        Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992; 7: 353-359
        • Lang L.A.
        • Wang R.F.
        • May K.B.
        The influence of abutment screw tightening on screw joint configuration.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 74-79
        • Dailey B.
        • Jordan L.
        • Blind O.
        • Tavernier B.
        Axial displacement of abutments into implants and implant replicas, with the tapered cone-screw internal connection, as a function of tightening torque.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24: 251-256
        • Niznick G.
        The implant abutment connection: The key to prosthetic success.
        Compendium. 1991; 12: 932, 934-938
        • Niznick G.A.
        The Core-Vent implant system.
        J Oral Implantol. 1982; 10: 379-418
        • Almeida E.O.
        • Freitas Jr., A.C.
        • Bonfante E.A.
        • Marotta L.
        • Silva N.R.
        • Coelho P.G.
        Mechanical testing of implant-supported anterior crowns with different implant/abutment connections.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 103-108
        • Balik A.
        • Karatas M.O.
        • Keskin H.
        Effects of different abutment connection designs on the stress distribution around five different implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis.
        J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38: 491-496
        • Jimbo R.
        • Halldin A.
        • Janda M.
        • Wennerberg A.
        • Vandeweghe S.
        Vertical fracture and marginal bone loss of internal-connection implants: A finite element analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 171-176
        • Hyun D.G.
        • Kwon H.B.
        • Lim Y.J.
        • Koak J.Y.
        • Kim M.J.
        The influence of a positioning hex on abutment rotation in tapered internal implants: A 3D finite element model study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 35: 281-288
        • Kitagawa T.
        • Tanimoto Y.
        • Odaki M.
        • Nemoto K.
        • Aida M.
        Influence of implant/abutment joint designs on abutment screw loosening in a dental implant system.
        J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005; 75: 457-463
        • Pessoa R.S.
        • Muraru L.
        • Junior E.M.
        • Vaz L.G.
        • Sloten J.V.
        • Duyck J.
        • et al.
        Influence of implant connection type on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants - CT-based nonlinear, three-dimensional finite element analysis.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12: 219-234
        • Yamanishi Y.
        • Yamaguchi S.
        • Imazato S.
        • Nakano T.
        • Yatani H.
        Influences of implant neck design and implant-abutment joint type on peri-implant bone stress and abutment micromovement: Three-dimensional finite element analysis.
        Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 1126-1133
        • Coppede A.R.
        • Faria A.C.
        • de Mattos Mda G.
        • Rodrigues R.C.
        • Shibli J.A.
        • Ribeiro R.F.
        Mechanical comparison of experimental conical-head abutment screws with conventional flat-head abutment screws for external-hex and internal tri-channel implant connections: An in vitro evaluation of loosening torque.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 321-329
        • Delben J.A.
        • Barao V.A.
        • Dos Santos P.H.
        • Assuncao W.G.
        Influence of abutment type and esthetic veneering on preload maintenance of abutment screw of implant-supported crowns.
        J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 134-139
        • Gumus H.O.
        • Zortuk M.
        • Albayrak H.
        • Dincel M.
        • Kocaagaoglu H.H.
        • Kilinc H.I.
        Effect of fluid contamination on reverse torque values in bone-level implants.
        Implant Dent. 2014; 23: 582-587
        • Yao K.T.
        • Kao H.C.
        • Cheng C.K.
        • Fang H.W.
        • Huang C.H.
        • Hsu M.L.
        The potential risk of conical implant-abutment connections: The antirotational ability of Cowell implant system.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: 1208-1216
        • Ma T.
        • Nicholls J.I.
        • Rubenstein J.E.
        Tolerance measurements of various implant components.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 371-375
        • Semper W.
        • Kraft S.
        • Mehrhof J.
        • Nelson K.
        Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: Theoretical considerations.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 752-758
        • Semper W.
        • Kraft S.
        • Kruger T.
        • Nelson K.
        Theoretical optimum of implant positional index design.
        J Dent Res. 2009; 88: 731-735
        • Byrne D.
        • Jacobs S.
        • O'Connell B.
        • Houston F.
        • Claffey N.
        Preloads generated with repeated tightening in three types of screws used in dental implant assemblies.
        J Prosthodont. 2006; 15: 164-171