Marginal Bone Loss and Peri-Implant Clinical Outcomes of Internal Hexagonal and Internal Conical Implant Abutment Connections: A Narrative Review.
5 affiliations
- 1Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, IND.
- 2Periodontics, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, IND.
- 3Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Air Force Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, IND.
- 4Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Dental Sciences, Chengalpattu, IND.
- 5Dentistry, Chris Dental Center, Chenniai, IND.
Abstract
The implant-abutment connection is the mechanical and biological interface between the implant and the prosthesis, and its geometry influences mechanical stability, sealing of the microgap, stress distribution, and the peri-implant tissue response. This narrative review compares internal hexagonal connections with internal conical connections, of which the Morse taper is a specific deep-cone, friction-locking type, focusing on marginal bone loss and peri-implant clinical outcomes, and distinguishes laboratory and mechanistic evidence from clinical evidence. Laboratory, finite element, and microbiological studies suggest that conical connections may reduce micromovement, microgap opening, and bacterial and endotoxin leakage and may transmit occlusal load more favorably than screw-retained internal hexagonal connections. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that internal connections, and conical connections in particular, are associated with lower short- to medium-term marginal bone loss, yet several randomized controlled trials, including a 2025 trial, show no significant difference between connection types in marginal bone loss, peri-implant tissue health, complications, or survival, and both designs achieve high survival. Clinical outcomes are strongly influenced by implant placement depth, abutment height, bone quality, soft-tissue phenotype, platform switching, loading protocol, prosthesis design, oral hygiene, smoking, systemic health, and follow-up duration. On current evidence, connection-specific clinical superiority has not been consistently established. Internal conical connections may be considered when marginal bone preservation, interface stability, and esthetic stability are priorities, whereas internal hexagonal connections may be preferred when prosthetic flexibility, indexed positioning, and retrievability are required. Connection selection should be individualized and guided by patient risk, site factors, prosthetic requirements, and the evidence for the specific implant system rather than by connection geometry alone.
Related
- Clinical service needs and outcomes for older children and adolescents in intensive care: a narrative review
- Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Osteotomy Instruments in Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: A Narrative Review of Surgical Efficiency, Safety, and Clinical Outcomes
- Current Status, Clinical Outcomes and Socioeconomic Challenges of Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Japan Compared with Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Narrative Review
- Machined versus cast abutments for dental implants: a 1-year within-patient multicentre randomized controlled trial assessing marginal seal capacity and outcomes
- Comparative outcomes of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer: a narrative review
BibTeX
@article{sameera2026marginal,
title = {{Marginal Bone Loss and Peri-Implant Clinical Outcomes of Internal Hexagonal and Internal Conical Implant Abutment Connections: A Narrative Review.}},
author = {Sameera Y and Mohan Valiathan and Peter Devadoss and Kamala Kannan Raja and Pretham K Christopher},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.116544},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42899228},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Marginal Bone Loss and Peri-Implant Clinical Outcomes of Internal Hexagonal and Internal Conical Implant Abutment Connections: A Narrative Review.
AU - Sameera Y
AU - Mohan Valiathan
AU - Peter Devadoss
AU - Kamala Kannan Raja
AU - Pretham K Christopher
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/19
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.116544
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42899228
AB - The implant-abutment connection is the mechanical and biological interface between the implant and the prosthesis, and its geometry influences mechanical stability, sealing of the microgap, stress distribution, and the peri-implant tissue response. This narrative review compares internal hexagonal connections with internal conical connections, of which the Morse taper is a specific deep-cone, friction-locking type, focusing on marginal bone loss and peri-implant clinical outcomes, and distinguishes laboratory and mechanistic evidence from clinical evidence. Laboratory, finite element, and microbiological studies suggest that conical connections may reduce micromovement, microgap opening, and bacterial and endotoxin leakage and may transmit occlusal load more favorably than screw-retained internal hexagonal connections. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that internal connections, and conical connections in particular, are associated with lower short- to medium-term marginal bone loss, yet several randomized controlled trials, including a 2025 trial, show no significant difference between connection types in marginal bone loss, peri-implant tissue health, complications, or survival, and both designs achieve high survival. Clinical outcomes are strongly influenced by implant placement depth, abutment height, bone quality, soft-tissue phenotype, platform switching, loading protocol, prosthesis design, oral hygiene, smoking, systemic health, and follow-up duration. On current evidence, connection-specific clinical superiority has not been consistently established. Internal conical connections may be considered when marginal bone preservation, interface stability, and esthetic stability are priorities, whereas internal hexagonal connections may be preferred when prosthetic flexibility, indexed positioning, and retrievability are required. Connection selection should be individualized and guided by patient risk, site factors, prosthetic requirements, and the evidence for the specific implant system rather than by connection geometry alone.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -