Influence of Abutment Screw-Tightening Methods on the Screw Joint : Immediate and Long-Term Stability
Copyright © 2024 Manlin Sun et al..
Objective: To evaluate the influence of screw-tightening methods on the immediate and long-term stability of dental implant screw joints. Methodology. A total of 150 implants of three different implant systems with different diameters were used in this study. Each group was divided into three subgroups (n = 5), according to the tightening methods (A-tightening with recommended torque and retorque after 10 min; B-tightening with recommended torque, then loosening and immediate retorque; C-tightening with recommended torque only once). The operating time of tightening the assemblies was recorded. Ten minutes later, the immediate removal torque (IRT) (Ncm) was measured. After retightening the assemblies, a dynamic load between 20 and 200 N was applied for 105 cycles, and the postloading removal torque (PRT) (Ncm) was measured. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to observe the surface topography of the screws.
Results: For different types of implants, the IRTs were 11.92 ± 1.04-34.12 ± 0.36 Ncm for method A, 11.64 ± 0.57-33.96 ± 0.29 Ncm for method B, and 10.30 ± 0.41-31.62 ± 0.52 Ncm for method C, and the IRTs of methods A and B were 6.28%-21.58% higher than that of method C (P ≤ 0.046). The PRTs were 4.08 ± 0.77-29.86 ± 0.65 Ncm for method A, 4.04 ± 0.40-29.60 ± 0.36 Ncm for method B, and 2.98 ± 0.26-26.38 ± 0.59 Ncm for method C, and the PRTs of methods A and B were 11.77%-44.87% higher than that of method C (P ≤ 0.016). The removal torque loss rates of methods A (12.49% ± 0.99%-65.88% ± 4.83%) and B (12.84% ± 0.96%-65.35% ± 1.95%) were 3.04%-7.74% lower than that of method C (16.58% ± 0.56%-71.10% ± 1.58%) (P ≤ 0.017). The operating time of method A was much longer than those of methods B and C (P < 0.001). The structural integrity disruption of the screw thread was observed according to the SEM results in all postloading groups.
Conclusions: Method B (torquing and then loosening and immediate retorquing) increases the screw joint immediate stability by 6.28%-21.58% and the long-term stability by 11.77%-44.87% compared with method C (torquing only once), has comparable screw joint stability compared with method A (retorquing after 10 min), saves time and is recommended in clinical settings.
Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
---|
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2024 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:2024 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
International journal of dentistry - 2024(2024) vom: 18., Seite 5768318 |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Sun, Manlin [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
---|
Themen: |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 25.01.2024 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
---|
doi: |
10.1155/2024/5768318 |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM367551039 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | NLM367551039 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20240125232151.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 240124s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1155/2024/5768318 |2 doi | |
028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1270.xml |
035 | |a (DE-627)NLM367551039 | ||
035 | |a (NLM)38264680 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Sun, Manlin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Influence of Abutment Screw-Tightening Methods on the Screw Joint |b Immediate and Long-Term Stability |
264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a Date Revised 25.01.2024 | ||
500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
520 | |a Copyright © 2024 Manlin Sun et al. | ||
520 | |a Objective: To evaluate the influence of screw-tightening methods on the immediate and long-term stability of dental implant screw joints. Methodology. A total of 150 implants of three different implant systems with different diameters were used in this study. Each group was divided into three subgroups (n = 5), according to the tightening methods (A-tightening with recommended torque and retorque after 10 min; B-tightening with recommended torque, then loosening and immediate retorque; C-tightening with recommended torque only once). The operating time of tightening the assemblies was recorded. Ten minutes later, the immediate removal torque (IRT) (Ncm) was measured. After retightening the assemblies, a dynamic load between 20 and 200 N was applied for 105 cycles, and the postloading removal torque (PRT) (Ncm) was measured. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to observe the surface topography of the screws | ||
520 | |a Results: For different types of implants, the IRTs were 11.92 ± 1.04-34.12 ± 0.36 Ncm for method A, 11.64 ± 0.57-33.96 ± 0.29 Ncm for method B, and 10.30 ± 0.41-31.62 ± 0.52 Ncm for method C, and the IRTs of methods A and B were 6.28%-21.58% higher than that of method C (P ≤ 0.046). The PRTs were 4.08 ± 0.77-29.86 ± 0.65 Ncm for method A, 4.04 ± 0.40-29.60 ± 0.36 Ncm for method B, and 2.98 ± 0.26-26.38 ± 0.59 Ncm for method C, and the PRTs of methods A and B were 11.77%-44.87% higher than that of method C (P ≤ 0.016). The removal torque loss rates of methods A (12.49% ± 0.99%-65.88% ± 4.83%) and B (12.84% ± 0.96%-65.35% ± 1.95%) were 3.04%-7.74% lower than that of method C (16.58% ± 0.56%-71.10% ± 1.58%) (P ≤ 0.017). The operating time of method A was much longer than those of methods B and C (P < 0.001). The structural integrity disruption of the screw thread was observed according to the SEM results in all postloading groups | ||
520 | |a Conclusions: Method B (torquing and then loosening and immediate retorquing) increases the screw joint immediate stability by 6.28%-21.58% and the long-term stability by 11.77%-44.87% compared with method C (torquing only once), has comparable screw joint stability compared with method A (retorquing after 10 min), saves time and is recommended in clinical settings | ||
650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
700 | 1 | |a Shui, Yusen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Yuqiang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ma, Ruiyang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Zhao, Yuwei |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Chen, Hongyu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Yu, Ping |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Li, Zhi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Wu, Tingting |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Yu, Haiyang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal of dentistry |d 2009 |g 2024(2024) vom: 18., Seite 5768318 |w (DE-627)NLM196567475 |x 1687-8728 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:2024 |g year:2024 |g day:18 |g pages:5768318 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/5768318 |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 2024 |j 2024 |b 18 |h 5768318 |