In Vitro Analysis of the Removability of Fractured Prosthetic Screws within Endosseous Implants Using Conventional and Mechanical Techniques.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The extraction of fractured abutment screws can be a difficult challenge to overcome. PURPOSE: To compare the removal capacity, dental implant connection damage, and time required to remove the fractured abutment screws between three drilling techniques and a conventional method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 180 prefabricated screw-retained abutments were intentionally fractured in internal connection dental implants after being subjected to a cyclic load and a static compression load. Afterwards, three operators randomly removed the fractured abutment screws with the following drilling techniques and a conventional method: A: a conventional technique using an exploration probe and ultrasonic appliance (n = 45), Rhein83® (n = 45); B: Sanhigia® (n = 45); C: Phibo® (n = 45). Two-way ANOVA models were estimated to evaluate the mean time according to the method and operator used. RESULTS: The probability of removal of the screws with mobility was twelve times higher than that of the screws without mobility (OR = 12.4; p < 0.001). The success rate according to the operators did not show statistically significant differences (p = 0.371). The location of the fractured screw did not affect removal success (p = 0.530). The internal thread of the implant was affected after the removal process in 9.8% of the cases. The mean extraction time was 3.17 ± 2.52 min. The Rhein83® method showed a success rate of 84.4%, followed by the Phibo® and conventional methods (71.1%) and the Sanhigia® method (46.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The Rhein83® drilling technique increases the removal probability of fractured abutment screws. The initial mobility of the fragment is also a significant factor in the removal success.

Resistance to loosening of intentionally shortened screws used to solve the unsuccessful removal of fractured prosthetic screws.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Fractured prosthetic implant screws cannot be removed in all patients, ultimately leading to the removal of the implant. Whether an intentionally shortened prosthetic implant screw (SPIS) can provide adequate retention is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the resistance to loosening of SPISs engaging the remaining coronal internal threads as a possible solution to maintaining both implant and restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty grade V titanium SPISs were used to tighten 50 titanium transepithelial abutments on implants to 30 Ncm. The specimens were distributed into 5 groups (n=10) according to the conditions under which the screws were secured to manufacturer-recommended preload: dry (D), moistened in saliva (AS), moistened in chlorhexidine (CLHX), wrapped in polytetrafluoroethylene tape (PTFE), and resin cemented (RE). All groups were subjected to a cyclic loading test (240 000 cycles). The reverse torque value (RTV) of the SPIS was registered twice: 24 hours after initial tightening (T1); and after retightening and the cyclic loading test (T2). The resultant RTV was compared with the 30-Ncm tightening torque to assess torque loosening. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for the comparisons between groups and the Wilcoxon test for the intragroup comparisons (α=.05 with Bonferroni correction). RESULTS: At T1, all groups found lower mean±standard deviation RTVs than the reference tightening torque (30 Ncm) (D 24.82±2.34 Ncm, AS 25.56±2.89 Ncm, PTFE 26.02±2.26 Ncm, CLHX 26.26±1.82 Ncm), except the resin-cemented group, which increased its RTV (RE 44.01±19.94 Ncm). At T2, all the groups found lower RTVs than the reference tightening torque, and the torque values at T1 (D 19.81±6.59 Ncm, CLHX 18.98±6.36 Ncm, AS 21.28±7.32 Ncm), with the exception of PTFE (24.07±3.41 Ncm) and RE (41.47±21.68 Ncm), where RTV was similar to that recorded at T1. At T1, significant differences were found among the groups (P=.024). At T2, after cyclic loading, the RE group found the highest RTV, reporting significant differences with the D and CHLX groups (P<.05) and statistically similar to the AS group (P=.068). CONCLUSIONS: PTFE-wrapped screws found similar RTVs after the fatigue test than dry, moistened with saliva, and moistened with chlorhexidine screws. Resin-cemented shortened prosthetic implant screws were found to be the most resistant to loosening after cyclic loading.

Prospective study of monolithic zirconia crowns: clinical behavior and survival rate at a 5-year follow-up.

Purpose To evaluate the clinical behavior and survival of full coverage monolithic zirconia crowns on posterior teeth over a 5-year follow-up.Methods Fifty patients were recruited and underwent restoration with a Lava Plus monolithic zirconia crown (Lava™ Frame Zirconia, 3M Espe, Germany) on premolars or molars. Patients were monitored over a 5-year follow-up (2014-19), recording any biological and/or mechanical complications; these data were used to estimate the crowns' success rate. Periodontal clinical parameters were recorded (pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PLI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and gingival recession (GR)). Wear to the zirconia crowns and antagonist teeth were also evaluated with Geomagic software (3D Systems, U.S.A.). Patients' satisfaction with treatment was evaluated in a questionnaire.Results For the 50 monolithic zirconia crowns analyzed, the survival rate was 98% after 5 years. Only 6% of the crowns presented some type of complication (two debonding and one root fracture). No fracture or fissures were detected. GR and BOP were the only clinical parameters found to be significantly greater around teeth restored with crowns. The monolithic zirconia crowns suffered less wear than the enamel of antagonist teeth. Patient's general satisfaction with treatment was high.Conclusions Monolithic zirconia crowns on posterior teeth are a highly predictable treatment option, with a high survival rate. The single treatment failure was due to a biological complication arising from root fracture. This treatment may be recommended as a treatment that conserves dental structure, and requires minimal dental preparation.

In vitro comparison of the efficacy of two fractured implant-prosthesis screw extraction methods: Conventional versus mechanical.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported prostheses may be subject to esthetic, biological, or mechanical complications. Protocols for dealing with these mechanical problems are sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the efficacy of a mechanical system for extracting fractured implant-prosthesis screws with the conventional method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 60 screws were divided into 2 groups according to their morphology (flat screws with a smooth shaft and threaded apical area and screws with a completely threaded body) and subjected to fatiguing and static load testing until fracture. The specimens were assigned to 3 operators with varying levels of clinical experience (high, medium, low) in extracting fractured screws by using the conventional method (explorer and ultrasound device) and a mechanical method (extractor kit). The extraction event (whether the screw fragment was extracted or not within 10 minutes) was recorded, and the time taken to perform the extraction was measured for each method in relation to screw type, operator experience, and damage to the threads. The influence of screw morphology, extraction method, operator experience, and fracture type on the time needed to extract a screw fragment was assessed with the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Thread damage was compared by using the Fisher's exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05). RESULTS: The mechanical method was more effective for screw extraction than the conventional method (P=.032). Screw morphology also had a significant influence on extraction, whereby the screw design with apical thread took less time to extract (P=.022). Coronal fractures had a higher probability of extraction than apical fractures (P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical extraction is more effective for extracting fractured implant-prosthetic screws, showing a higher probability of extraction than the conventional method. Prosthetic fixing screws with a smooth shaft and threaded apical area are the easiest to extract.