Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs
A common problem associated with single tooth implant restorations is abutment screw loosening. Manufacturers of implants have attempted to overcome this problem by incorporating antirotational design characteristics into their systems. Micromovement and torque levels required to loosen abutment scr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 1995-09, Vol.74 (3), p.270-278 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 278 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 270 |
| container_title | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry |
| container_volume | 74 |
| creator | Dixon, Donna L. Breeding, Larry C. Sadler, J. Peter McKay, Matthew L. |
| description | A common problem associated with single tooth implant restorations is abutment screw loosening. Manufacturers of implants have attempted to overcome this problem by incorporating antirotational design characteristics into their systems. Micromovement and torque levels required to loosen abutment screws for straight and angled antirotational screw-retained abutment/implant combinations from three different manufactures were examined in this in vitro investigation. A custom-built machine was used and each sample was subjected to compressive horizontal reciprocal movements over a 25-degree incline for a simulated 1-month period. Data were generated that showed movements of the crown/abutment complex during force application. The amount of torque necessary to loosen the abutment screws before and after testing was also recorded and compared for each system. The results indicated no significant differences (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77651102</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022391305801349</els_id><sourcerecordid>77651102</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-95e72e11ff66cc606804f8a088dc6077a4a7a11b2a70c7bd41e63e583e11bd6c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LJDEQhoOs6Kz6E4ScZAVbq_ojSZ9kGVxXEDyo55BJV4-R7mRMelb235txBq-eiuJ93_p4GDtFuERAcfUIUJZF1WL1C5pzBVjVRbvHZgitLISq8QebfVkO2c-UXgFANRIP2IGsZVUqnLHHeRhXJroUPA89TzbSOx9CSOSdX17wGCYzueAvuPEd76gfyG56bsbgl3x6iUTcjavB-CnLyS19Omb7vRkSnezqEXv-c_M0_1vcP9zezX_fF7aqcSrahmRJiH0vhLUChIK6VwaU6nInpamNNIiL0kiwctHVSKKiRlU5s-iErY7Y2XbuKoa3NaVJjy5ZGvItFNZJSykaRCizsdkabQwpRer1KrrRxP8aQW9g6k-YekNKQ6M_Yeo25053C9aLkbqv1I5e1q-3OuUv_zmKOllH3lLnYsaku-C-2fABnqyEGw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77651102</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Dixon, Donna L. ; Breeding, Larry C. ; Sadler, J. Peter ; McKay, Matthew L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Donna L. ; Breeding, Larry C. ; Sadler, J. Peter ; McKay, Matthew L.</creatorcontrib><description>A common problem associated with single tooth implant restorations is abutment screw loosening. Manufacturers of implants have attempted to overcome this problem by incorporating antirotational design characteristics into their systems. Micromovement and torque levels required to loosen abutment screws for straight and angled antirotational screw-retained abutment/implant combinations from three different manufactures were examined in this in vitro investigation. A custom-built machine was used and each sample was subjected to compressive horizontal reciprocal movements over a 25-degree incline for a simulated 1-month period. Data were generated that showed movements of the crown/abutment complex during force application. The amount of torque necessary to loosen the abutment screws before and after testing was also recorded and compared for each system. The results indicated no significant differences (p<0.05) among all the straight and angled abutments for the variables studied.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7473281</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Crowns ; Dental Abutments ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dental Prosthesis Retention - instrumentation ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Dental Stress Analysis ; Dentistry ; Humans ; Prosthesis Failure ; Rotation ; Tooth, Artificial</subject><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 1995-09, Vol.74 (3), p.270-278</ispartof><rights>1995 Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-95e72e11ff66cc606804f8a088dc6077a4a7a11b2a70c7bd41e63e583e11bd6c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-95e72e11ff66cc606804f8a088dc6077a4a7a11b2a70c7bd41e63e583e11bd6c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7473281$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Donna L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Breeding, Larry C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sadler, J. Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKay, Matthew L.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><description>A common problem associated with single tooth implant restorations is abutment screw loosening. Manufacturers of implants have attempted to overcome this problem by incorporating antirotational design characteristics into their systems. Micromovement and torque levels required to loosen abutment screws for straight and angled antirotational screw-retained abutment/implant combinations from three different manufactures were examined in this in vitro investigation. A custom-built machine was used and each sample was subjected to compressive horizontal reciprocal movements over a 25-degree incline for a simulated 1-month period. Data were generated that showed movements of the crown/abutment complex during force application. The amount of torque necessary to loosen the abutment screws before and after testing was also recorded and compared for each system. The results indicated no significant differences (p<0.05) among all the straight and angled abutments for the variables studied.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Crowns</subject><subject>Dental Abutments</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Retention - instrumentation</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Dental Stress Analysis</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Rotation</subject><subject>Tooth, Artificial</subject><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LJDEQhoOs6Kz6E4ScZAVbq_ojSZ9kGVxXEDyo55BJV4-R7mRMelb235txBq-eiuJ93_p4GDtFuERAcfUIUJZF1WL1C5pzBVjVRbvHZgitLISq8QebfVkO2c-UXgFANRIP2IGsZVUqnLHHeRhXJroUPA89TzbSOx9CSOSdX17wGCYzueAvuPEd76gfyG56bsbgl3x6iUTcjavB-CnLyS19Omb7vRkSnezqEXv-c_M0_1vcP9zezX_fF7aqcSrahmRJiH0vhLUChIK6VwaU6nInpamNNIiL0kiwctHVSKKiRlU5s-iErY7Y2XbuKoa3NaVJjy5ZGvItFNZJSykaRCizsdkabQwpRer1KrrRxP8aQW9g6k-YekNKQ6M_Yeo25053C9aLkbqv1I5e1q-3OuUv_zmKOllH3lLnYsaku-C-2fABnqyEGw</recordid><startdate>199509</startdate><enddate>199509</enddate><creator>Dixon, Donna L.</creator><creator>Breeding, Larry C.</creator><creator>Sadler, J. Peter</creator><creator>McKay, Matthew L.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199509</creationdate><title>Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs</title><author>Dixon, Donna L. ; Breeding, Larry C. ; Sadler, J. Peter ; McKay, Matthew L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-95e72e11ff66cc606804f8a088dc6077a4a7a11b2a70c7bd41e63e583e11bd6c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Crowns</topic><topic>Dental Abutments</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Retention - instrumentation</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Dental Stress Analysis</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Rotation</topic><topic>Tooth, Artificial</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Donna L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Breeding, Larry C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sadler, J. Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKay, Matthew L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dixon, Donna L.</au><au>Breeding, Larry C.</au><au>Sadler, J. Peter</au><au>McKay, Matthew L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><date>1995-09</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>270</spage><epage>278</epage><pages>270-278</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract>A common problem associated with single tooth implant restorations is abutment screw loosening. Manufacturers of implants have attempted to overcome this problem by incorporating antirotational design characteristics into their systems. Micromovement and torque levels required to loosen abutment screws for straight and angled antirotational screw-retained abutment/implant combinations from three different manufactures were examined in this in vitro investigation. A custom-built machine was used and each sample was subjected to compressive horizontal reciprocal movements over a 25-degree incline for a simulated 1-month period. Data were generated that showed movements of the crown/abutment complex during force application. The amount of torque necessary to loosen the abutment screws before and after testing was also recorded and compared for each system. The results indicated no significant differences (p<0.05) among all the straight and angled abutments for the variables studied.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>7473281</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-3913 |
| ispartof | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 1995-09, Vol.74 (3), p.270-278 |
| issn | 0022-3913 1097-6841 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77651102 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Analysis of Variance Crowns Dental Abutments Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants Dental Prosthesis Design Dental Prosthesis Retention - instrumentation Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Dental Stress Analysis Dentistry Humans Prosthesis Failure Rotation Tooth, Artificial |
| title | Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T12%3A40%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20screw%20loosening,%20rotation,%20and%20deflection%20among%20three%20implant%20designs&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=Dixon,%20Donna%20L.&rft.date=1995-09&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=270&rft.epage=278&rft.pages=270-278&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77651102%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77651102&rft_id=info:pmid/7473281&rft_els_id=S0022391305801349&rfr_iscdi=true |