Comparison of removal torque between prefabricated and customized abutment screw.
10.4047/jkap.2012.50.4.243
- Author:
Otgonbold JAMIYANDORJ
1
;
Jee Hwan KIM
;
Mu Seong KIM
;
Young Bum PARK
;
June Sung SHIM
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. jfshim@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Customized abutment screw;
Prefabricated abutment screw;
Removal torque;
Dental implant;
Screw loosening
- MeSH:
Axis, Cervical Vertebra;
Dental Implants;
Torque
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2012;50(4):243-248
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the removal torque between prefabricated and customized implant abutment screw. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three types of implant system (Osstem, Astra, Zimmer) were used. For each system, prefabricated abutment screw (control group) and customized abutment screw (test group) were used to connect the fixture and the abutment (n = 6). Digital torque gauze was used to control the tightening torque and the screws were tightened under each manufacturer's recommendation. 10 minutes after the connection the same tightening torque was applied, and 5 minutes after the second connection, the removal torque was measured. This procedure was repeated 10 times. In the cyclic loading test, 10 minutes after the first connection to the 6 groups (n = 3), the same tightening torque was applied, and a total of 1,000,000 time loading was applied at 30 degree angle to long axis with 50 N load. Repeated measures of ANOVA test (alpha=.05) was used as statistics to evaluate the effect of repeated loading number on the removal torque. Independent t-test was used to evaluate the difference in removal torque after cyclic loading. RESULTS: The removal torque significantly decreased as the number of loading repetition increased (P<.05). In the 10 time repetition test, there was no significant difference between the prefabricated and customized implant abutment screw of the 3 implant system (P<.05). Also in the cyclic loading test, there was no significant difference between the prefabricated and customized implant abutment screw of the 3 implant system (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this study, there was no significant difference in the removal torque between the prefabricated abutment screw and customized abutment screws.
