Measurement of clinicians' ability to hand torque dental implant components.

There is a varying degree of hand torque abilities using finger drivers among clinicians. Calibrating one's own abilities requires complicated instruments not readily available. This study evaluated a simple-to-use method that allows dental practitioners to have a quantifiable clinical assessment of relative torque ability using finger drivers to torque down dental implant components. A typodont that includes dental implants was mounted in a mannequin placed in a patient-reclined position. The subjects were asked to torque as tightly as they could a new healing abutment to an implant secured firmly in resin within the typodont. All participants wore moistened gloves when using a finger driver. The healing abutment was countertorqued using a certified precalibrated precision torque measurement device. The reading on the torque driver was recorded when the healing abutment disengaged. An average of torque values of dentists and dental students was calculated. Fifty subjects had an average maximum torque ability of 24 Ncm (male dentists: 28 Ncm; students: 22 Ncm; male students: 24 Ncm; female students: 19 Ncm). Maximum torque values for all participants ranged from 11 Ncm to 38 Ncm. There was no significant difference between groups. This study showed a varying degree of hand torquing abilities using a finger driver. Clinicians should regularly calibrate their ability to torque implant components to more predictably perform implant dentistry. Dental implant manufacturers should more precisely instruct clinicians as to maximum torque, as opposed to "finger tighten only".

Mandibular incisive canal: cone beam computed tomography.

PURPOSE: Panoramic radiography is often used to analyze the anatomical structure of the teeth, jaws, and temporomandibular joints. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging allows multiple axial slices of the image to be obtained through these anatomical structures. The aim of this study was to assess CBCT compared with panoramic radiography to verify the presence, location, and dimensions of the mandibular incisive canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT scan images and panoramic radiographs of 89 subjects were compared for the presence of the mandibular incisive canal, its location, size, and anterior-posterior length. The distance between the incisive canal and the buccal and lingual plate of the alveolar bone, and the distance from the canal to the inferior border of the mandible and the tooth apex were also measured. A paired t-test was used to calculate any significant difference between the two imaging techniques. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of the CBCT scans showed the presence of the incisive canal, as did 11% of the panoramic radiographs. The range of the incisive canal diameter, as seen in the CBCT scans, was from 0.4 × 0.4 mm to 4.6 × 3.2 mm. The mean length of the canal was 7 ± 3.8 mm. The distance from the inferior border of the mandible to the canal was 10.2 ± 2.4 mm, and the mean distance to the buccal plate was 2.4 mm. The apex-canal distance (in dentate subjects) was 5.3 mm. CONCLUSION: The presence, location, and dimensions of the mandibular incisive canal are better determined by CBCT imaging than by panoramic radiography.