Accuracy and precision of as-received implant torque wrenches

Britton-Vidal, Eduardo; Baker, Paul E.; Mettenburg, Donald; Pannu, Darshanjit S.; Looney, Stephen W.; Londono, Jimmy

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.06.002

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To mimic clinical situation, we used dedicated beam-type toque wrench delivered from manufacturer. According to the previous studies, the wrench of Nobel Biocare only reportedly demonstrated the target torque value falling within the 95% confidence interval for the true population mean among four kinds of wrenches [ 17 ]. In addition, significantly lower deviations of torque values for beam-type wrenches were reported than for coil and toggle-style wrenches [ 18 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of implant–abutment connection on the screw loosening and microleakage

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere are some spaces between abutment and implant body which can be a reservoir of toxic substance, and they can penetrate into subgingival space from microgap at the implant–abutment interface. This penetration may cause periimplantitis which is known to be one of the most important factors associated with late failure. In the present study, three kinds of abutment connection system, external parallel connection (EP), internal parallel connection (IP), and internal conical connection (CC), were studied from the viewpoint of microleakage from the gap between the implant and the abutment and in connection with the loosening of abutment screw.MethodsWe observed dye leakage from abutment screw hole to outside through microgap under the excessive compressive and tensile load and evaluated the anti-leakage characteristics of these connection systems.ResultsDuring the experiment, one abutment screw for EP and two screws for IP, out of seven samples in each group, were fractured. After the 2000 cycles of compressive tensile loadings, removal torque value (RTV) of abutment screw represented no statistical differences among three groups. Standard deviation was largest in the RTV of EP and smallest in that of CC. The results of microleakage of toluidine blue from implant–abutment connection indicated that microleakage generally increased as loading procedure progressed.The amount of microleakage was almost plateau at 2000 cycles in CC, but still increasing in other two groups. The value of microleakage greatly scattered in EP, but the deviation of that in CC is significantly smaller. At 500 cycles of loading, there were no significant differences in the amount of microleakage among the groups, but at 1000, 1500, and 2000 cycles of loading, the amount of microleakage in CC was significantly smaller than that in IP. Throughout the experiment, the amount of microleakage in EP was largest, but no statistical difference was indicated due to the high standard deviation.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of the present study, CC was stable even after the loading in the RTV of abutment screw and it prevented microleakage from the microgap between the implant body and the abutment, among the three tested connections.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of implant–abutment connection on the screw loosening and microleakage

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have compared the accuracy of both designs with varying results. 10,11,12 The ISO 6789 recommends that mechanical torque-limiting devices should be routinely tested for validity of readings and re-calibrated at 5000 cycles or 12 months, whichever comes first. 13 Wadhwani et al reported that a 10% variation in target torque accuracy had been assigned arbitrarily in implant dentistry rather than the 6% specified by the ISO.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of electronic versus mechanical torque‐limiting devices for dental implants: An in vitro study

Faraj,

Bidra,

Taylor

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo determine the accuracy of new electronic torque‐limiting devices (ET) when compared to new and used conventional‐style beam‐type (BT) mechanical torque‐limiting devices and hand‐piece style (HS) mechanical torque‐limiting devices. The secondary purpose was to compare any difference in accuracy between new and used mechanical torque‐limiting devices, and any difference in accuracy when used on a straight versus an angled screw channel abutment.Materials And MethodsA total of 5 torque‐limiting devices were used to obtain 2000 readings under standardized conditions. An implant analog was fastened into a digital torque meter, to which an abutment was connected. Pre‐determined torque values of 15 Ncm and 35 Ncm were applied, and actual torque values were recorded. A straight and an angled abutment were used to record 1000 readings each using the 5 torque‐limiting devices. An overall Kruskal‐Wallis test was applied to compare the median deviation among devices followed by a pairwise comparison ( = 0.05).ResultsFor a target torque value of 15Ncm on a straight abutment, the electronic device (ET) was statistically more accurate than the beam type (BT) new (P <.001) and used (P <.048) devices but less accurate than the hand‐piece style (HS) used device (P<.001). On an angled abutment for a target value of 15Ncm, the electronic device (ET) was statistically more accurate than hand‐piece style (HS) new and used devices (P<.001). For a target torque value of 35Ncm on a straight abutment, the ET was statistically more accurate than the HS new device (P<.001) but less accurate than the BT new device (P<.001). On an angled abutment for a target value of 35Ncm, the electronic device (ET) was statistically less accurate than each of the beam‐type (BT) new device (P<.001), the beam‐type (BT) used device (P = .001), and the hand‐piece style (HS) used device (P<.001). The electronic device (ET) was the only device accurate within the ISO standard of accuracy of 6% for each of the target torque value/abutment design combinations. There was no statistically significant difference related to the type of abutment used (angled versus straight).ConclusionsElectronic torque limiting devices (ET) are an acceptable method for delivering torque for implant restorations for straight and angled abutments at 15 Ncm and 35 Ncm torque values. Conventional style beam‐type (BT) mechanical torque‐limiting devices are a simple, predictable, validated, and inexpensive tool for delivering accurate torque at 15 Ncm and 35 Ncm torque values. The hand‐piece style (HS) mechanical torque‐limiting devices are predictable to deliver 15 Ncm torque values.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

The loose implant restoration syndrome

Simon¹

2015

Dental Implant Complications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy and precision of as-received implant torque wrenches

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

The influence of implant–abutment connection on the screw loosening and microleakage

The influence of implant–abutment connection on the screw loosening and microleakage

Comparison of electronic versus mechanical torque‐limiting devices for dental implants: An in vitro study

The loose implant restoration syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About