Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.4.280

Detorque values of abutment screws in a multiple implant-supported prosthesis  

Lee, Ju-Ri (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Dental Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
Lee, Dong-Hwan (Department of Prosthodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Hwang, Jae-Woong (Department of Prosthodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Choi, Jung-Han (Department of Prosthodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.48, no.4, 2010 , pp. 280-286 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the detorque values of screws in a multiple implant-supported superstructure using stone casts made with 2 different impression techniques. Material and methods: A fully edentulous mandibular master model and a metal framework directly connected to four implants (Br${\aa}$nemark $System^{(R)}$; Nobel Biocare AB) with a passive fit to each other were fabricated. Six experimental stone casts (Group 1) were made with 6 non-splinted impressions on a master cast and another 6 experimental casts (Group 2) were made with 6 acrylic resin splinted impressions. The detorque values of screws ($TorqTite^{(R)}$ GoldAdapt Abutment Screw; Nobel Biocare AB) were measured twice after the metal framework was fastened onto each experimental stone cast with 20 Ncm torque. Detorque values were analyzed using the mixed model with the fixed effect of screw and reading and the random effect of model for the repeated measured data at a .05 level of ignificance. Results: The mean detorque values were 7.9 Ncm (Group 1) and 8.1 Ncm (Group 2), and the mean of minimum detorque values were 6.1 Ncm (Group 1) and 6.5 Ncm (Group 2). No statistically significant differences between 2 groups were found and no statistically significant differences among 4 screws were found for detorque values. No statistically significant differences between 2 groups were also found for minimum detorque values. Conclusion: In a multiple external hexagon implant-supported prosthesis, no significant differences between 2 groups were found for detorque values and for minimum detorque values. There seems to be no significant differences in screw joint stability between 2 stone cast groups made with 2 different impression techniques.
Keywords
Detorque value; Implant; Impression technique; Screw; Superstructure;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Brager U, Aeschlimann S, Bu¨rgin W, Ha¨mmerle CH, Lang NP. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:26-34.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Goldfogel M, Harvey WL, Winter D. Dimensional change of acrylic resin tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:284-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Davis GB, Moser JB, Brinsden GI. The bonding properties of elastomer tray adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:278-85.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Revised American Dental Association Specification no. 19 for Nonaqueous, Elastomeric Dental Impression Materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94:733-41.   DOI
5 Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T, Coffey JP. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:529-36.
6 Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different screw materials and surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:24-32.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Cibirka RM, Nelson SK, Lang BR, Rueggeberg FA. Examination of the implant-abutment interface after fatigue testing. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:268-75.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:216-22.
9 Henry PJ. An alternative method for the production of accurate casts and occlusal records in osseointegrated implant rehabilitation. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:694-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:323-31.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:51-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Worthington P, Bolender CL, Taylor TD. The Swedish system of osseointegrated implants: problems and complications encountered during a 4-year trial period. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:77-84.
13 Choi JH, Kim CW, Lim YJ, Kim MJ, Lee SH. The effect of screw tightening sequence and tightening method on the detorque value in implant-supported superstructure. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2007;45:653-64.   과학기술학회마을
14 Tautin FS. Impression making for osseointegrated dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:250-1.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:581-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Rhyu SM, Cho IH, Lim HS, Lim JH. A comparative study on the accuracy of master casts by implant impression techniques. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2002;40:18-29.   과학기술학회마을
17 Hsu CC, Millstein PL, Stein RS. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:588-93.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Nissan J, Gross M, Shifman A, Assif D. Stress levels for well-fitting implant superstructures as a function of tightening force levels, tightening sequence, and different operators. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:20-3.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Sellers GC. Direct assembly framework for osseointegrated implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:662-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Jemt T, Laney WR, Harris D, Henry PJ, Krogh PH Jr, Polizzi G, Zarb GA, Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:29-36.
21 Byrne D, Houston F, Cleary R, Claffey N. The fit of cast and premachined implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:184-92.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, Kirsch A. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:209-18.
23 Kim JM, Han JS, Lee SH, Yang JH, Lee JB, Kim YS. A study of screw loosening after dynamic continous fatigue test of several abutment screw. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2003;41:519-31   과학기술학회마을
24 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.
25 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7: 468-75.
26 Binon PP. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:149-60.
27 Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:720-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:470-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Naconecy MM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RS, Frasca LC, Cervieri A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:192-8.
30 Bartlett DW, Greenwood R, Howe L. The suitability of head-ofimplant and conventional abutment impression techniques for implant- retained three unit bridges: an in vitro study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002;10:163-6.
31 Pietrabissa R, Gionso L, Quaglini V, Di Martino E, Simion M. An in vitro study on compensation of mismatch of screw versus cement- retained implant supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:448-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Assif D, Fenton A, Zarb G, Schmitt A. Comparative accuracy of implant impression procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992;12:112-21.
33 Sekine H, Komiyama Y, Potta H , Yoshida K. Mobility characteristics and tactile sensitivity of osseointegrated fixture-supporting systems. In: van Steenberghe D, Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Henry PJ, Holt R, Liden G. Tissue integration in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1986, p. 326-32.
34 Patterson EA. Passive fit: Meaning, significance and assessment in relation to implant-supported prostheses. In: Naert EI. passive fit of implant- supported superstructures: Friction or reality? proceedings of an international symposium. Leuven: Leuven University Press; 1995, p. 17-28.
35 Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Bra􀆆nemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-6.
36 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:448-55.
37 Barrett MG, de Rijk WG, Burgess JO. The accuracy of six impression techniques for osseointegrated implants. J Prosthodont 1993;2:75-82.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185-94.   DOI   ScienceOn