scholarly journals Abutment Screw Loosening in Single Implant Restorations: Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Implant-Supported Cement-Retained Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Repaired with Porcelain and Composite Resin

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Zoheir Mousavi Mehr ◽  
HamidNeshandar Asli ◽  
Mehran Falahchai ◽  
Samiye Rahimabadi ◽  
Hamidreza Arbab
2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 445-447
Author(s):  
Young-Gun Shin ◽  
So-Yun Kim ◽  
Chang-Mo Jeong ◽  
So-Hyoun Lee ◽  
Jung-Bo Huh

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Behnaz Ebadian ◽  
Amirhossein Fathi ◽  
Saba Khodadad

Background. The complications of implant-supported prostheses can be classified into mechanical and biological ones, one part of which is associated with screw loosening. This study was aimed to compare the effect of four different abutment screw torque techniques on screw loosening in single implant-supported prostheses following the application of mechanical loading. Materials and Methods. In this experimental study, a total of 40 implants in acrylic blocks (6 × 10 × 20 mm) were mounted perpendicular to the surface. They were then randomly divided into four groups: (1) torquing once with 30 Ncm, (2) torquing three times with 30 Ncm and 5-minute intervals, (3) torquing once with 30 Ncm, opening the screw, and retorquing with 30 Ncm, and (4) torquing once with 35 Ncm. The torque values were confirmed by using a digital torque meter. Then, the samples underwent a force (2 cps, 0.453–11.793 kg) for three hours before the measurement of detorque values. The screw loosening force (torque) was then measured and recorded. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS (version 22) software using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test at a 5% error level. Results. The maximum mean detorque values of the abutment screws in single implant-supported prostheses were reported for groups 4 (27.8 ± 1.3), 1 (26.8 ± 1.3), and 3 (25.1 ± 1.3), and the minimum mean detorque value was found in group 2 (24.9 ± 1.2). Moreover, no significant difference was observed between groups 2 and 3 ( p > 0.05 ), but a significant difference was found between groups 1 and 3 and other groups ( p < 0.05 ). Conclusion. The increase in the torque value increased the torque loss. However, the detorque value in group 4 showed the least difference with the value recommended by the manufacturer (30 Ncm).


2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariko Kubo ◽  
Wataru Komada ◽  
Shiho Otake ◽  
Tasuku Inagaki ◽  
Satoshi Omori ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-138
Author(s):  
Hasan Kocaağaoğlu ◽  
Haydar Albayrak ◽  
Zekeriya Taşdemir ◽  
Sezgi Cinel Sahin ◽  
Mustafa Zortuk

Crown fractures, framework fractures, and abutment screw loosening or screw fracture are examples of mechanical implant failures. Abutment screw loosening is a serious problem that can result in abutment screw fractures. This clinical report describes the production method of a custom-made abutment screwdriver piece for a patient with abutment screw loosening.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
D.R. Prithviraj ◽  
Ninad Muley ◽  
Vikas Gupta

A study of the implant–abutment connection is of great importance because it is the primary determinant of the strength and stability of an implant-supported restoration, which, in turn, determines the restoration’s prosthetic stability. Traditionally, Brånemark’s external hexagon has been used, but significant complications, such as abutment screw loosening, rotational misfit at the implant–abutment interface, and microbial penetration have led to modification of the external hexagon and the development of internal implant–abutment connections. In this review, we describe various implant–abutment connections that have evolved over time from the traditional external hexagon.  How to cite this article: Alharissy M, Dayoub S. The Evolution of External and Internal Implant–Abutment Connections: A Review. Int Dent Res 2012;2:37-42. Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Rashid Habib ◽  
Abdulaziz Alotaibi ◽  
Nawaf Al Hazza ◽  
Yasser Allam ◽  
Mohammad AlGhazi

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Mangano ◽  
Giovanni Veronesi

Aim. To compare the outcome of digital versus analog procedures for the restoration of single implants. Methods. Over a two-year period (2014-2016), all patients who had been treated in a dental center with a single implant were randomly assigned to receive either a monolithic zirconia crown, fabricated with digital workflow (test group), or a metal-ceramic crown, fabricated with analog workflow (control group). All patients were followed for 1 year after the delivery of the final crown. The outcomes were success, complications, peri-implant marginal bone loss (PIMBL), patient satisfaction, and time and cost of the treatment. Results. 50 patients (22 males, 28 females; mean age 52.6±13.4 years) were randomly assigned to one of the groups (25 per group). Both workflows showed high success (92%) and low complication rate (8%). No significant differences were found in the mean PIMBL between test (0.39±0.29mm) and control (0.54±0.32mm) groups. Patients preferred digital impressions. Taking the impression took half the time in the test group (20±5min) than in the control (50±7min) group. When calculating active working time, workflow in the test group was more time-efficient than in the control group, for provisional (70±15min versus 340±37min) and final crowns (29±9min versus 260±26min). The digital procedure presented lower costs than the analog (€277.3 versus €392.2). Conclusions. No significant clinical or radiographic differences were found between digital and analog procedures; however, the digital workflow was preferred by patients; it reduced active treatment time and costs. The present study is registered in the ISRCTN (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36259164) with number 36259164.


2020 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 380-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Elisa Kauling ◽  
Jan-Frederik Güth ◽  
Kurt Erdelt ◽  
Daniel Edelhoff ◽  
Christine Keul

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document