Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2013; 07(03): 267-271
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.115407
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test

Paulo Cesar Pinheiro Feitosa
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate, Taubate-SP, Brazil
,
Ana Paula Barbosa de Lima
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate, Taubate-SP, Brazil
,
Laís Regiane Silva-Concílio
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate, Taubate-SP, Brazil
,
William Cunha Brandt
2   Department of Dentistry, Area of Implantology, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil
,
Ana Christina Claro Neves
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate, Taubate-SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the torque and detorque values of screw intermediates of external hexagon, internal hexagon, and Morse taper implants in single restorations before and after mechanical cycling. Materials and Methods: The study sample was divided into three groups (n = 10) as follows: group EH - external hexagon implant, group IH - internal hexagon implant, and group MT - Morse taper implant. Universal abutments were screwed on the implants, and metal crowns were cemented onto the abutment. The samples were submitted to a mechanical testing of 1 million cycles, with a frequency of 8 cycles per second under a 400 N load. The application and registration of the screw torque (T0) and detorque (T1) values of the intermediate were performed before and after the test. The results were statistically evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey′s test (α = 0.05). Results: There was no difference between the values of T0 and T1 in the intra-group samples. However, the inter-group difference in T0 between the EH (12.8 N cm) and MT (18.6 N cm) groups and in T1 between the EH (10.4 N cm) and IH (13.8 N cm), EH and MT (19.4 N cm), and MT and IH (P = 0.001) groups were significant. The MT group showed a lower variation of T0 and T1. Conclusion: The internal implants, particularly MT, showed better stability in these cases when used for single restorations.

Key words:

Dental implant - dental prosthesis - dental prosthesis retention - fatigue
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Kim SK, Lee JB, Koak JY, Heo SJ, Lee KR, Cho LR. An abutment screw loosening study of a diamond like carbon-coated CP titanium implant. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 346-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Davi LR, Golin AL, Berbardes SR, Araújo CA, Neves FD. In vitro integrity of implant external hexagon after application of surgical placement torque simulating implant locking. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22: 125-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Binon PP. Implants and components: Entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 76-91
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Ricomini Filho AP, Fernandes FS, Straioto FG, da Silva WJ, Del Bel Cury AA. Preload loss and bacterial penetration on different implant-abutment connection systems. Braz Dent J 2010; 21: 123-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cibirka RM, Nelson SK, Lang BR, Rueggeberg FA. Examination of implant abutment interface after fatigue testing. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 268-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Assunção WG, Barão VVA, Delben JA, Gomes ÉA, Garcia Jr IR. Effect of unilateral misfit on preload of retention screws of implant-supported prostheses submitted to mechanical cycling. J Prosthodont Res 2011; 55: 12-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kano SC, Binon PP, Curtis DA. A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 879-85
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Barbosa GA, Bernardes SR, das Neves FD, Fernandes Neto AJ, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Relation between Implant/Abutment Vertical Misfit and Torque Loss of Abutment Screws. Braz Dent J 2008; 19: 358-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hoyer SA, Stanford CM, Buranadham S, Fridrich T, Wagner J, Gratton D. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface: Joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 599-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee CK, Karl M, Kelly JR. Evaluation of test protocol variables for dental implant fatigue research. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1419-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo Sogo. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: A short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 75-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wahl C, França FM, Brito Jr RB, Basting RT, Smanio H. Assessment of the tensile strength of hexagonal abutments using different cementing agents. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22: 299-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Khraisat A, Hashimoto A, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Effect of lateral cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of an external hexagon implant system. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 326-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 119-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gokcen-Rohlig B, Yaltirik M, Ozer S, Tuncer ED, Evlioglu G. Survival and Success of ITI Implants and Prostheses: Retrospective Study of Cases with 5-Year Follow-Up. Eur J Dent 2009; 3: 42-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tabata LF, Rocha EP, Barão VA, Assunção WG. Platform switching: Biomechanical evaluation using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 482-91
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Park JK, Choi JU, Jeon YC, Choi KS, Jeong CM. Effects of abutment screw coating on implant preload. J Prosthodont 2010; 19: 458-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mangano C, Bartolucci EG. Single tooth replacement by morse taper connection implants: A retrospective study of 80 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 675-80
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Krennmair G, Schmidinger S, Waldenberger O. Single-tooth replacement with the Frialit-2 system: A retrospective clinical analysis of 146 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 78-85
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Squier RS, Psoter WJ, Taylor TD. Removal torques of conical, tapered implant abutments: The effects of anodization and reduction of surface area. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 24-7
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Weiss EI, Kozak D, Gross MD. Effect of repeated closure on opening torque value in seven abutment-implant systems. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 194-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Implant-abutment screw joint preload of 7 hex-top abutment systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 367-77
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different screw materials and surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 24-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Aboyoussef H, Weiner S, Ehrenberg D. Effect as an antirotation resistance form on screw loosening for single implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 450-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nigro F, Sendyk CL, Francischone Jr CE, Francischone CE. Removal torque of zirconia abutment screws under dry and wet conditions. Braz Dent J 2010; 21: 225-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gratton DG, Aquilino SA, Stanford CM. Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lee J, Kim YS, Kim CW, Han JS. Wave analysis of implant screw loosening using an air cylindrical cyclic loading device. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88: 402-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 290-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar