RESUMEN
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant abutment screw loosening is the most common prosthetic complication of implant-supported single crowns. However, few studies have objectively evaluated the effectiveness of different tightening protocols on reverse tightening values (RTVs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the optimal tightening protocol for implant abutment screws with different screw materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty implants from 2 implant systems (Keystone and Nobel Biocare) with different definitive screw materials were selected. One group used diamond-like carbon (DLC) coated screws (DLC Group), and the other used titanium nitride (TiN) screws (TiN Group). Each group consisted of 30 implants. The implants in each group were distributed randomly into 3 subgroups (n=10). The implants from both manufacturers were mounted in resin blocks by following a clinical component connection protocol: a cover screw was placed, then an impression coping, and finally an original manufacturer prefabricated abutment. The abutment screws were tightened to the manufacturer's recommended tightening value using 3 different protocols: tighten the screw once (1T); tighten the abutment screw to the recommended tightening value, wait 10 minutes, and then retighten (2T); and tighten the abutment screw to the recommended tightening value, countertighten, tighten, countertighten, and then tighten (3TC). RTVs were measured after 3 hours. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normal distribution of the data. The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to each system's group that was not normally distributed (P<.05). Where differences existed, a post hoc analysis using the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Flinger (DSCF) pairwise comparisons test was conducted. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the 3 different tightening groups in the TiN group (P>.05). However, significant differences were found among the 3 different tightening protocols in the DLC group (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Abutment screw systems from different manufacturers behave differently with respect to how they are tightened. For the TiN screw group, statistically similar RTVs were found for the 3 tightening protocols. The most efficient tightening protocol for the DLC-coated screw was the 3TC-DLC.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare screw surface characteristics between hemi-engaging and non-engaging implant-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) designs after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four implants measuring 4.3 × 10 mm were mounted on acrylic resin blocks. Specimens were divided into two groups. An experimental group included twelve 3-unit FPD with a hemi-engaging design; a control group included twelve 3-unit FPDs with the conventional design of two non-engaging abutments. Both groups were subjected to two types of cycling loading (CL), first axial loading, and then lateral loading at 30°. Load was applied to the units one million times (1.0 × 106 cycles) for each loading axis. Data on screw surface roughness in three locations and screw thread depth were collected before (BL) and after (AL) each loading type. Screw surface roughness was measured in µm using a mechanical digital surface profilometer and optical profiler. To evaluate screw thread depth in µm, an upright optical microscope Axio-imager 2 was used. To confirm readings made from the optical microscope, four random samples were selected from each group for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. The effect of cyclic loading was evaluated by averaging values across the two screws within each specimen, then calculating difference scores (DL) between BL and AL (DL = AL - BL). Additional difference scores were computed between the non-engaging screws in each experimental group specimen, and one randomly selected non-engaging screw in each control specimen. This difference was referred to as the non-engaging DL. Statistical significance was assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Comparisons of DL and non-engaging DL by loading type revealed one significant difference regarding surface roughness at the screw thread. Significantly greater mean changes were observed after axial loading compared to lateral loading regarding both DL (axial M = -0.36 ± 0.08; lateral M = -0.21 ± 0.09; U = 20; p = 0.003) and non-engaging DL (axial M = -0.40 ± 0.22; lateral M = -0.21 ± 0.11; U = 29; p = 0.013). No significant differences in screw surface roughness in other sites or thread depth were found between the experimental and control abutment designs in DL or in non-engaging DL. No significant differences were found for DL (axial U = 13, p = 0.423; lateral U = 9, p = 0.150;) or non-engaging DL (axial U = 13, p = 0.423; lateral U = 18, p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that overall, changes in screw surface physical characteristics did not differ between hemi-engaging and non-engaging designs after evaluating screw surface roughness and thread depth before and after axial and lateral cyclic loading.
RESUMEN
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A hemi-engaging abutment design has been suggested to improve the stability of the implant-to-abutment interface compared with that of a fully nonengaging design to restore implant-supported fixed partial denture. However, controversy persists regarding the benefit of using a hemi-engaging abutment design and prompts the need for specific mechanical testing on the effect of these designs on screw preload under simulated clinical conditions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether significant differences in preload values of the screw before and after cyclic loading exist between hemi-engaging and nonengaging abutment fixed partial denture designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four conical connection implants measuring 4.3×10 mm (Nobel Biocare Replace Conical Connection; Nobel Biocare) were mounted in acrylic resin blocks. Specimens were divided into 2 groups. An experimental group included 12 three-unit fixed partial dentures with a hemi-engaging design; a control group included 12 three-unit fixed partial dentures with the conventional design of 2 nonengaging abutments. A digital screw torque meter was used to measure screw torque values per the manufacturer's recommendation of 35 Ncm. Reverse torque value was measured before cyclic loading and referred to as initial preload. After cyclic loading, reverse torque value was measured and referred to as final preload. The effect of cyclic loading was evaluated by averaging the reverse torque value across the 2 screws in each specimen and then calculating the changes between the initial preload and final preload. The difference between initial and final preload was referred to as reverse torque difference. An additional reverse torque difference, referred to as reverse torque difference-nonengaging, was calculated for the nonengaging screws in each experimental specimen and for 1 randomly selected screw of the 2 in each control specimen. Preload efficiency before and after cyclic loading was also calculated. All groups went through cyclic loading using a universal testing machine. The specimens went through axial loading first, and then the reverse torque value was measured. Twenty-four new abutment screws were then used, and the specimens then went through lateral loading at 30 degrees. Load was applied to the units (1.0×106 cycles) for each loading axis. The statistical significance of differences between the axial and lateral reverse torque difference and between the 2 groups of reverse torque difference and reverse torque difference-nonengaging were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests (α=.05). RESULTS: A comparison of reverse torque difference between loading types revealed no significant difference (P=.773). Therefore, data for the 2 loading types were combined before comparing the reverse torque difference and reverse torque difference-nonengaging values between the 2 groups based on abutment design (12 hemi-engaging designs in the experimental group and 12 fully nonengaging designs in the control group). The experimental group mean reverse torque difference was -0.65 ±1.95 Ncm (range -4.0 to 2.4 Ncm), and the control group mean reverse torque difference was -2.5 ±5.44 Ncm (range -15.3 to 5.3 Ncm). No significant difference was found (P=.340). Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the reverse torque difference for the nonengaging screw in each of the 12 implants with a hemi-engaging design versus 1 randomly selected nonengaging screw in each of the 12 implants with a fully nonengaging design (P=.355). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found in screw preload between a hemi-engaging and a full nonengaging 3-unit fixed partial denture supported by conical connection implant configurations before and after cyclic loading.