Influence of Insertion Torques on the Surface Integrity in Different Dental Implants: An Ex Vivo Descriptive Study.
implant connection
implant surface
insertion torque
topographic change
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2023
14 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
29
01
2023
revised:
05
03
2023
accepted:
13
03
2023
medline:
30
3
2023
entrez:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The primary objective of this ex vivo study was to assess the influence of increasing insertion torques on three types of dental implants and possible alterations of their microgeometry after the application of three different torque intensities. 27 implants of 3 different implant brands (Groups A, B and C) were placed in cow ribs using 30 Ncm, 45 Ncm and 55 Ncm insertion torques. The implants were subsequently removed using trephine burs, and SEM analysis was carried out in order to detect implant surface and connection changes, as compared to the implant controls. Surface deformations were predominantly observed on the third apical part of the implants. The alterations presented with increasing insertion torques, with 45 Ncm being the threshold value. Prosthetic connections were also compromised. The changes sustained by the implants were proportional to the insertion torque they were subjected to; 45 Ncm and greater insertion torques resulted in more consistent damage, both on the implant surface and the implant connection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The primary objective of this ex vivo study was to assess the influence of increasing insertion torques on three types of dental implants and possible alterations of their microgeometry after the application of three different torque intensities.
METHODS
METHODS
27 implants of 3 different implant brands (Groups A, B and C) were placed in cow ribs using 30 Ncm, 45 Ncm and 55 Ncm insertion torques. The implants were subsequently removed using trephine burs, and SEM analysis was carried out in order to detect implant surface and connection changes, as compared to the implant controls.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Surface deformations were predominantly observed on the third apical part of the implants. The alterations presented with increasing insertion torques, with 45 Ncm being the threshold value. Prosthetic connections were also compromised.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The changes sustained by the implants were proportional to the insertion torque they were subjected to; 45 Ncm and greater insertion torques resulted in more consistent damage, both on the implant surface and the implant connection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36984210
pii: ma16062330
doi: 10.3390/ma16062330
pmc: PMC10058042
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Nov;84(8):1093-110
pubmed: 12463652
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Dec;100(6):422-31
pubmed: 19033026
J Oral Implantol. 2009;35(6):277-82
pubmed: 20017643
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jan-Feb;29(1):97-104
pubmed: 24451859
Int J Prosthodont. 2005 Mar-Apr;18(2):165-6
pubmed: 15889668
Implant Dent. 2015 Jun;24(3):281-6
pubmed: 25961168
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):769-76
pubmed: 16274152
Braz Dent J. 2010;21(6):508-14
pubmed: 21271040
J Orthop Res. 2001 Mar;19(2):171-8
pubmed: 11347687
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(2):75-83
pubmed: 11359301
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jan;23(1):113-8
pubmed: 21426405
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 Jul 8;29(4):233-246
pubmed: 28556604
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Aug;21(8):877-84
pubmed: 20528892
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 May;20(5):467-71
pubmed: 19522976
Acta Biomater. 2014 Jul;10(7):2894-906
pubmed: 24590162
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012 Dec;16:169-80
pubmed: 23182386
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000 Feb;11(1):12-25
pubmed: 11168189
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018 Oct 09;10:203-209
pubmed: 30349398
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Aug;17(4):681-92
pubmed: 24283455
Braz Dent J. 2013;24(3):213-7
pubmed: 23969908
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Mar;75(2):270-8
pubmed: 8444949
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(2):85-92
pubmed: 11359268
Acta Biomater. 2012 Sep;8(9):3524-31
pubmed: 22583904
Acta Orthop Scand. 1992 Apr;63(2):128-40
pubmed: 1590045
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):837-49
pubmed: 21841994
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009 Jun;11(2):113-9
pubmed: 18422713
PLoS One. 2021 May 19;16(5):e0251904
pubmed: 34010325
J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):700-4
pubmed: 19335092
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Feb;21(2):213-20
pubmed: 20070754