The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The change of rotational freedom following different insertion torques in three implant systems with implant driver

  • Kwon, Joo-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics, YongDong Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Han, Chong-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics, YongDong Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Sun-Jai (Department of Prosthodontics, YongDong Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Chang, Jae-Seung (Department of Dentistry, YongIn Severance Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Published : 2009.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. Implant drivers are getting popular in clinical dentistry. Unlike to implant systems with external hex connection, implant drivers directly engage the implant/abutment interface. The deformation of the implant/abutment interface can be introduced while placing an implant with its implant driver in clinical situations. PURPOSE. This study evaluated the change of rotational freedom between an implant and its abutment after application of different insertion torques. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Three kinds of internal connection implants were utilized for the current study($4.5{\times}12\;mm$ Xive, $4.3{\times}11.5\;mm$ Inplant Magicgrip, $4.3{\times}12\;mm$ Implantium MF). An EstheticBase, a 2-piece top, a Dual abutment was used for its corresponding implant system. The rotational freedom between an implant and its abutment were measured before and after applying 45, 100 Ncm insertion torque. Repeated measures ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS. Under 45 Ncm insertion torque, the rotational freedom between an implant and its abutment was significantly increased in Xive(P = .003). However, no significant change was noted in Inplant Magicgrip and Implantium MF. Under 100 Ncm torque, both in Xive(P = .0005) and Implatium MF(P = .03) resulted in significantly increased rotational freedom between the implant and its abutment. DISCUSSION. The design of the implant/implant driver interface effectively prevented the deformation of implant/abutment interface. Little change was noted in the rotational freedom between an implant and its abutment, even though the insertion torque was far beyond clinical application. CONCLUSIONS. The implant/abutment joint of internally connecting implants were quite stable under insertion torque in clinical situation.

Keywords

References

  1. English CE. Externally hexed implants, abutments, and transfer devices: a comprehensive overview. Implant Dent 1992;1:273-82. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199200140-00009
  2. Widmark G, Friberg B, Johansson B, Sindet-Pedersen S, Taylor A. Mk III: a third generation of the self-tapping Branemark System implant, including the new Stargrip internal grip design. A 1-year prospective four-center study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:273-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00211.x
  3. Bambini F, Meme L, Pellecchia M, Sabatucci A, Selvaggio R. Comparative analysis of deformation of two implant/abutment connection systems during implant insertion. An in vitro study. Minerva Stomatol 2005;54:129-38.
  4. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:162-78.
  5. Binon PP. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:149-60.
  6. Binon PP, McHugh MJ. The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:511-9.
  7. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors -- a comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:542-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130515.x
  8. Cehreli MC, Akca K, Iplikciog lu H, Sahin S. Dynamic fatigue resistance of implant-abutment junction in an internally notched morse-taper oral implant: influence of abutment design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:459-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01023.x
  9. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:604-10. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129384
  10. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26.
  11. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:290-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x
  12. de Barros Carrilho GP, Dias RP, Elias CN. Comparison of external and internal hex implants’rotational freedom: a pilot study. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:165-6.
  13. Squier RS, Psoter WJ, Taylor TD. Removal torques of conical, tapered implant abutments: the effects of anodization and reduction of surface area. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:24-7.

Cited by

  1. Microbial Leakage at the Implant-Abutment Connection Due to Implant Insertion Maneuvers: Cross-Sectional Study 5 Years Postloading in Healthy Patients vol.41, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00235
  2. Loosening of the fixing screw in single implant crowns: predisposing factors, prevention and treatment options vol.29, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12303
  3. Effect of Abutment Connection Type and Cyclic Loading on Removal Torque Value vol.4, pp.1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.29252/jrdms.4.1.36
  4. Deformation of the Internal Connection of Narrow Implants after Insertion in Dense Bone: An in Vitro Study vol.12, pp.11, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12111833
  5. Mechanism of and factors associated with the loosening of the implant abutment screw: A review vol.31, pp.4, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12494
  6. How Do Differences of Dental Implants’ Internal Connection Systems Affect Stress Distribution? A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis vol.23, pp.3, 2009, https://doi.org/10.2478/bjdm-2019-0023