Next Article in Journal
Superficial Temporal Artery Perforator Flap: Indications, Surgical Outcomes, and Donor Site Morbidity
Previous Article in Journal
Three-Dimensional Assessment of Mandibular Condylar Volume and Position Subsequent to Twin Block Functional Therapy of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Accompanied by Low-Level Laser Therapy
Article

Comparison in Four Different Implant Systems of Mechanical Resistance to Maximal Stress in Prosthetic Screws—An In Vitro Study

1
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Instituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde Rua Central da Gandra 1317, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
2
Dental Science Department, Instituto de Investigação e Formação Avançada em Ciências e Tecnologias da Saúde (IINFACTS), Rua Central da Gandra 1317, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dent. J. 2020, 8(4), 116; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040116
Received: 28 August 2020 / Revised: 27 September 2020 / Accepted: 3 October 2020 / Published: 9 October 2020
Micromovements of the implant–abutment connection influence peri-implant bone preservation. This study evaluates and quantifies the maximal torque after a cycle of implant prosthetic screws tightening using original components. A total of 40 samples were tested: Megagen®—Daegu, South Korea; Dentium®—Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Korea; BIOMET 3i®—West Palm Beach, FL, USA and BTI®—Álava, Spain. Screws from each manufacturer were subjected to maximal stress force until they fractured. The fracture points were recorded and compared among all samples. To compare the mean values of fracture torques, the reference values associated with each brand and the sample results were used in t-tests. ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to compare the maximal resistance limit between brands, complemented with Tukey’s multiple-comparison test. The maximal considered level of significance was 5%. The average fracture force for the brands was 40.07 Ncm for Megagen®, 53.39 Ncm for Dentium®, 39.74 Ncm for Biomet 3i®, and 68.84 Ncm for BTI®. BTI® screws showed the most resistance to fracture. According to the protocol that was applied, the implant–abutment connection demonstrated good resistance and a precise fit between these interfaces; therefore, in some cases, the presented values showed a lack of quality control and low fracture resistance. View Full-Text
Keywords: screw; abutment; implant; fracture; implantology screw; abutment; implant; fracture; implantology
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Barreiros, P.; Neves, L.; Aroso, C.; Mendes, J.M.; Silva, A.S. Comparison in Four Different Implant Systems of Mechanical Resistance to Maximal Stress in Prosthetic Screws—An In Vitro Study. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040116

AMA Style

Barreiros P, Neves L, Aroso C, Mendes JM, Silva AS. Comparison in Four Different Implant Systems of Mechanical Resistance to Maximal Stress in Prosthetic Screws—An In Vitro Study. Dentistry Journal. 2020; 8(4):116. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040116

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barreiros, Pedro, Luís Neves, Carlos Aroso, José M. Mendes, and António S. Silva 2020. "Comparison in Four Different Implant Systems of Mechanical Resistance to Maximal Stress in Prosthetic Screws—An In Vitro Study" Dentistry Journal 8, no. 4: 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040116

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop