Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 9;8(4):116.
doi: 10.3390/dj8040116.

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

Affiliations

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

Pedro Barreiros et al. Dent J (Basel). .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: abutment; fracture; implant; implantology; screw.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest, and this work was not supported or funded by any company.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screw caractheristics and dimensions. (a) Bti®; (b) Dentium®; (c) Megagen®; (d) Biomet 3i®.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example of prosthetic screw—Dentium®.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) CS-Dental Testing Machine®; (B) load cell; (C) load cell (superior view) with retention area to prosthetic abutments.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Fracture point in detail—BTI® prosthetic key; (B) directional force of torsion (fracture pattern).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Fracture point of all studied samples.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Representative grinding of prosthetic screw fit.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Distribution of maximal fracture-resistance torque limit of all analyzed samples.

References

    1. Ring M.E. A thousand years of dental implants: A definitive history—Part 1. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 1995;16:1060–1062. - PubMed
    1. Bornstein M.M., Halbritter S., Harnisch H., Weber H.P., Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: Indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2008;23:1109–1116. - PubMed
    1. Klokkevold P.R., Han T.J. How do smoking, diabetes, and periodontitis affect outcomes of implant treatment? Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2007;22:173–202. - PubMed
    1. Freese H.L., Volas M.G., Wood J.R. Metallurgy and Technological Properties of Titanium and Titanium Alloys. In: Freese H.L., Volas M.G., Wood J.R., editors. Titanium in Medicine. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2001. pp. 25–51. Engineering Materials.
    1. Patterson E.A., Johns R.B. Theoretical analysis of the fatigue life of fixture screws in osseointegrated dental implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1992;7:26–33. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources