A novel technique to retrieve cold‐welded implant abutment: A case series

Arshad, Mahnaz; Mahgoli, Hosseinali; Rasouli, Kamran; Refoua, Sina

doi:10.1002/ccr3.2375

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second possibility might be that despite or because of the various external influences, there might be no great changes, and if so, only minimal ones. 21 22 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pull-off resistance of a screwless implant-abutment connection and surface evaluation after cyclic loading

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent cyclic load affects the screwless implant-abutment connection for Morse taper dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS 16 implants (SICvantage max) and 16 abutments (Swiss Cross) were used. The screwless implant-abutment connection was subjected to 10,000 cycles of axial loading with a maximum force of 120 N. For the pull-off testing, before and after the same cyclic loading, the required force for disconnecting the remaining 6 implant-abutment connections was measured. The surface of 10 abutments was examined using a scanning electron microscope 120× before and after loading. RESULTS The pull-off test showed a significant decrease in the vertical force required to pull the abutment from the implant with mean 229.39 N ± 18.23 before loading, and 204.30 N ± 13.51 after loading ( P <.01). Apart from the appearance of polished surface areas and slight signs of wear, no visible damages were found on the abutments. CONCLUSION The deformation on the polished abutment surface might represent the result of micro movements within the implant-abutment connection during loading. Although there was a decrease of the pull-off force values after cyclic loading, this might not have a notable effect on the clinical performance.

show abstract

“…The second possibility might be that despite or because of the various external influences, there might be no great changes, and if so, only minimal ones. 21 22 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pull-off resistance of a screwless implant-abutment connection and surface evaluation after cyclic loading

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the internal conical connection, the stress is concentrated on the implant–abutment interface, which can be a site of fracture resulting in a jammed abutment component or implant fracture. When the implant is positioned in a submucosal environment, which is a narrow and deep space containing saliva and blood, multiple techniques/instruments, such as forceps, casting screwdrivers, drilling instruments, or a rescue kit, may be required to replace the fractured part without damaging the internal implant surface (Agustin‐Panadero et al, 2020; Arshad et al, 2019; Igarashi et al, 2019; Johnston et al, 2018; Luterbacher et al, 2000). Moreover, the removal of the fragments is a significant challenge that requires patience and expertise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective study of 12,538 internal conical connection implants focused on the long‐term integrity of implant–abutment complexes

Jin

Guan

Ren

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the long‐term integrity of implant–abutment complexes in implant systems with two internal conical angles. Material and Methods 12,538 bone‐level implants of two systems placed between January 2012 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Cumulative abutment/implant fracture rates in systems with larger (LA, 7.5°) and smaller (SA, 5.7°) internal conical angles were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier analysis and compared between groups. The association between implant systems and jammed abutment retrievability was evaluated by multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression modeling. Results For LA, the 8‐year cumulative incident rate was 0.10% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0–0.24%) for implant fracture and 0.26% (95% CI: 0.11%–0.41%) for abutment fracture, demonstrating a significant difference in gender (p = .03), implant diameter (p = .01), jaw (p = .006), and antagonist tooth (p < .001). For SA, the 8‐year cumulative incident rate was 0.38% (95% CI: 0–0.79%) for implant fracture and 2.62% (95% CI: 0.05%–5.13%) for abutment fracture, which was influenced by implant diameter (p < .001) and site (p = .03). The cumulative implant/abutment fracture rate was lower for LA implants, particularly for LA implant‐supported single crowns (SCs) (p < .05). The abutment‐retrieval success rate was 92.9% for LA and 57.1% for SA (p = .055). Conclusion LA implants exhibited a lower incidence of fracture in abutment–implant complexes and a relatively higher retrievability success rate for jammed abutments.

show abstract

“…Like prosthetic screws, if healing abutments are tightened with insufficient torque, they can loosen and dislodge from the patient's mouth. Conversely, if excessive tightening forces are applied to the healing abutment, deformation can occur resulting in fractured, stripped, blocked, or irretrievable healing abutments, which require complex management 8–10 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spring‐style involves a scale of torque levels that are marked by the manufacturer, and the desired torque level is reached upon tightening by applying force on the beam to the value on the scale 13 . Conversely, friction‐style wrenches consist of pre‐marked torque values assigned by the operator, and the desired torque value is reached when the arm of the wrench disengages 1–12 . Vallee et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, if excessive tightening forces are applied to the healing abutment, deformation can occur resulting in fractured, stripped, blocked, or irretrievable healing abutments, which require complex management. [8][9][10] Clinicians can tighten the healing abutments with hand drivers or by using torque controllers. However, a large variability has been demonstrated between clinicians applying hand torque to healing abutments ranging from 11 Ncm to 38 Ncm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of torque controllers on healing abutments in implant dentistry—an in vitro study

Goyal

Delgado-Ruíz

Kurtz

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of three torque‐control devices used on healing abutments in implant prosthodontics.Materials and MethodsIn this in vitro experiment, three torque controllers, Ankylos® friction‐based, Straumann® spring‐based, and Anthogyr® pre‐calibrated torque control devices were used to tighten the healing abutments of Ankylos® and Straumann® dental implants to a pre‐determined value of 15 Ncm. A digital torque meter (DT), Cedar DID‐4A, was used to assess removal torque as a surrogate for the accuracy of the torque controllers to apply a tightening force of 15Ncm on healing abutments. One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify differences between each torque controller and the digital torquemeter, a p<0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe torque required to remove the healing abutments was 16.05± 0.66 Ncm for the Ankylos® ratchet, 12.61± 0.90 Ncm for the Straumann® ratchet, and 14.37±1.08 Ncm for the Anthogyr® torque‐control device. Significant statistical differences were observed between AnkylosÒ and the control digital torquemeter (p = 1.84E−8; F = 50.3); Anthogyr® and control digital torquemeter (p = 0.01; F = 6.79); and Straumann® and control digital torquemeter (p = 0.01; F = 141.15).ConclusionFriction‐based (Ankylos®), spring‐based (Straumann®), and pre‐calibrated (Anthogyr®) torque control devices present over‐torque and under‐torque values when used over healing abutments of Ankylos® and Straumann® implant systems.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

A novel technique to retrieve cold‐welded implant abutment: A case series

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Pull-off resistance of a screwless implant-abutment connection and surface evaluation after cyclic loading

Pull-off resistance of a screwless implant-abutment connection and surface evaluation after cyclic loading

A retrospective study of 12,538 internal conical connection implants focused on the long‐term integrity of implant–abutment complexes

Accuracy of torque controllers on healing abutments in implant dentistry—an in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About