Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.307

Displacement of scan body during screw tightening: A comparative in vitro study  

Kim, JungHan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Son, KeunBaDa (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University)
Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.12, no.5, 2020 , pp. 307-315 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of displacement while tightening the screw of scan bodies, which were compared according to the material type. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three types of scan bodies whose base regions were made up of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material [Straumann Group, Dentium Group, and Myfit (PEEK) Group] and another scan body whose base region was made up of titanium material [Myfit (Metal) Group] were used (15 per group). The reference model was fabricated by aligning the scan body library on the central axis of the implant, and moving this position by the resin model. The screws of the scan bodies were tightened to the implant fixture with torques of 5 Ncm, 10 Ncm, and a hand tightening torque. After the application of the torque, the scan bodies were scanned using a laboratory scanner. To evaluate the vertical, horizontal, and 3-dimensional (3D) displacements, a 3D inspection software program was used. To examine the difference among groups, one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD post hoc test were used (α=.05). RESULTS. There were significant differences in 3D, vertical, and horizontal displacements among the different types of scan bodies (P<.001). There was a significantly lower displacement in the Straumann group than in the Myfit (PEEK) and Dentium groups (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The horizontal displacement in all groups was less than 10 ㎛. With the hand tightening torque, a high vertical displacement of over 100 ㎛ occurred in PEEK scan bodies (Myfit and Dentium). Therefore, it is recommended to apply a tightening torque of 5 Ncm instead of a hand tightening torque.
Keywords
Dental implant; Scan body; Tightening torque; Displacement; Polyether ether ketone (PEEK);
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK. Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:662-7.
2 Eliasson A, Wennerberg A, Johansson A, Ortorp A, Jemt T. The precision of fit of milled titanium implant frameworks (I-Bridge) in the edentulous jaw. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:81-90.   DOI
3 Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:506-15.
4 Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52.   DOI
5 Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9.   DOI
6 Brandt J, Lauer HC, Peter T, Brandt S. Digital process for an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:469-73.   DOI
7 Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health 2018;18:117.   DOI
8 Rutkunas V, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Oral Impl Res 2020;22:237-45.   DOI
9 Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz MA, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Influence of the accuracy of intraoral scanbodies on implant position: Differences in manufacturing tolerances. Int J Prosthodont 2019;32:430-2.   DOI
10 Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaca JL. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17: e751-64.
11 Kim SJ, Son K, Lee KB. Digital evaluation of axial displacement by implant-abutment connection type: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:388-94.   DOI
12 Ichikawa T, Kurahashi K, Liu L, Matsuda T, Ishida Y. Use of a polyetheretherketone clasp retainer for removable partial denture: A case report. Dent J 2019;7:4.   DOI
13 Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses. A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2016;25:580-4.   DOI
14 Gilbert AB, Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL, Chien HH. Three-dimensional displacement of nine different abutments for an implant with an internal hexagon platform. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:781-8.   DOI
15 Alikhasi M, Kazemi M, Jalali H, Hashemzadeh S, Dodangeh H, Yilmaz B. Clinician-generated torque on abutment screws using different hand screwdrivers. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:488-92.   DOI
16 Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410.   DOI
17 Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark 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.
18 Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:30-7.
19 Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002;11:30-40.   DOI
20 Rebeeah HA, Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy E, Clelland N, Brantley W. Comparison of 3D displacements of screw-retained zirconia implant crowns into implants with different internal connections with respect to screw tightening. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:132-7.   DOI
21 Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:149.   DOI
22 Park GH, Son K, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:803-10.   DOI
23 Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:31-41.   DOI
24 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20.   DOI
25 Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450-9.   DOI
26 Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:101.   DOI
27 Flugge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.