Influence of Torque on Platform Deformity of the Tri-Channel Implant: Two- and Three-Dimensional Analysis Using Micro-Computed Tomography
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Micro-CT Deformation Analysis
2.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Griggs, J.A. Dental Implants. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 61, 857–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaviria, L.; Salcido, J.P.; Guda, T.; Ong, J.L. Current Trends in Dental Implants. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 40, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrcanovic, B.R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Reasons for Failures of Oral Implants. J. Oral Rehabil. 2014, 41, 443–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ryu, H.S.; Namgung, C.; Lee, J.H.; Lim, Y.J. The Influence of Thread Geometry on Implant Osseointegration under Immediate Loading: A Literature Review. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2014, 6, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Coppedê, A.R.; Faria, A.C.L.; de Mattos, M.d.G.C.; Rodrigues, R.C.S.; Shibli, J.A.; Ribeiro, R.F. Mechanical Comparison of Experimental Conical-Head Abutment Screws with Conventional Flat-Head Abutment Screws for External-Hex and Internal Tri-Channel Implant Connections: An In Vitro Evaluation of Loosening Torque. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2013, 28, e321–e329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nary Filho, H.; Calvo Guirado, J.L.; Matsumoto, M.A.; Bresaola, M.D.; Aur, R. Biomechanical Evaluation of Resistance to Insertion Torque of Different Implant Systems and Insertion Driver Types. Implant Dent. 2015, 24, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santiago, J.F.; De Souza Batista, V.E.; Verri, F.R.; Honório, H.M.; De Mello, C.C.; Almeida, D.A.D.; Pellizzer, E.P. Platform-Switching Implants and Bone Preservation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 45, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chrcanovic, B.R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Platform Switch and Dental Implants: A Meta-Analysis. J. Dent. 2015, 43, 629–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salamanca, E.; Lin, J.C.Y.; Tsai, C.Y.; Hsu, Y.S.; Huang, H.M.; Teng, N.C.; Wang, P.D.; Feng, S.W.; Chen, M.S.; Chang, W.J. Dental Implant Surrounding Marginal Bone Level Evaluation: Platform Switching versus Platform Matching—One-Year Retrospective Study. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 7191534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cicciù, M.; Cervino, G.; Milone, D.; Risitano, G. FEM Investigation of the Stress Distribution over Mandibular Bone Due to Screwed Overdenture Positioned on Dental Implants. Materials 2018, 11, 1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lavorgna, L.; Cervino, G.; Fiorillo, L.; Di Leo, G.; Troiano, G.; Ortensi, M.; Galantucci, L.; Cicci, M. Reliability of a Virtual Prosthodontic Project Realized through a 2D and 3D Photographic Acquisition: An Experimental Study on the Accuracy of Different Digital Systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cicciù, M. Bioengineering Methods of Analysis and Medical Devices: A Current Trends and State of the Art. Materials 2020, 13, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdelhamed, M.I.; Galley, J.D.; Bailey, M.T.; Johnston, W.M.; Holloway, J.; Mcglumphy, E.; Leblebicioglu, B. A Comparison of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments for Microleakage. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17, e643–e651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cicciù, M.; Bramanti, E.; Cecchetti, F.; Scappaticci, L.; Guglielmino, E.; Risitano, G. FEM and Von Mises Analyses of Different Dental Implant Shapes for Masticatory Loading Distribution. Oral Implantol. 2014, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cicciù, M.; Cervino, G.; Milone, D.; Risitano, G. FEM Analysis of Dental Implant-Abutment Interface Overdenture Components and Parametric Evaluation of Equator® and Locator® Prosthodontics Attachments. Materials 2019, 12, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Scarano, A.; Mortellaro, C.; Mavriqi, L.; Pecci, R.; Valbonetti, L. Evaluation of Microgap with Three-Dimensional x-Ray Microtomography: Internal Hexagon versus Cone Morse. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2016, 27, 682–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greenstein, G.; Cavallaro, J. Implant Insertion Torque: Its Role in Achieving Primary Stability of Restorable Dental Implants. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2017, 38, 88–95, quiz 96. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Liang, Y.; Zheng, Q. Meta-Analysis of Correlations Between Marginal Bone Resorption and High Insertion Torque of Dental Implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2015, 30, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cervino, G.; Fiorillo, L.; Arzukanyan, A.V.; Spagnuolo, G.; Campagna, P.; Cicciù, M. Application of Bioengineering Devices for Stress Evaluation in Dentistry: The Last 10 Years FEM Parametric Analysis of Outcomes and Current Trends. Minerva Stomatol. 2020, 69, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farronato, D.; Pieroni, S.; Mangano, F.G.; Briguglio, F.; Re, D. Effects of Different Abutment Material and Surgical Insertion Torque on the Marginal Adaptation of an Internal Conical Interface: An in Vitro Study. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2014, 58, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, J.H.; Han, C.H.; Kim, S.J.; Chang, J.S. The Change of Rotational Freedom Following Different Insertion Torques in Three Implant Systems with Implant Driver. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2009, 1, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bambini, F.; Memè, L.; Pellecchia, M.; Sabatucci, A.; Selvaggio, R. Comparative Analysis of Deformation of Two Implant/Abutment Connection Systems during Implant Insertion. An in Vitro Study. Minerva Stomatol. 2005, 54, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Sotto-Maior, B.S.; Rocha, E.P.; de Almeida, E.O.; Freitas-Júnior, A.C.; Anchieta, R.B.; Del Bel Cury, A.A. Influence of High Insertion Torque on Implant Placement—An Anisotropic Bone Stress Analysis. Braz. Dent. J. 2010, 21, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Maeda, Y.; Satoh, T.; Sogo, M. In Vitro Differences of Stress Concentrations for Internal and External Hex Implant-Abutment Connections: A Short Communication. J. Oral Rehabil. 2006, 33, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasada, Y.; Cochran, D. Implant-Abutment Connections: A Review of Biologic Consequences and Peri-Implantitis Implications. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2017, 32, 1296–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- D’Ercole, S.; Scarano, A.; Perrotti, V.; Mulatinho, J.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G.; Tripodi, D. Implants with Internal Hexagon and Conical Implant-Abutment Connections: An In Vitro Study of the Bacterial Contamination. J. Oral Implantol. 2014, 40, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqutaibi, A.Y.; Aboalrejal, A.N. Microgap and Micromotion at the Implant Abutment Interface Cause Marginal Bone Loss Around Dental Implant but More Evidence Is Needed. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2018, 18, 171–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gehrke, S.A.; Shibli, J.A.; Aramburú Junior, J.S.; de Val, J.E.M.S.; Calvo-Girardo, J.L.; Dedavid, B.A. Effects of Different Torque Levels on the Implant-Abutment Interface in a Conical Internal Connection. Braz. Oral Res. 2016, 30, e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Comparisons | Estimated Difference between Means | p-Value | Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
45 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | 4.67 | <0.001 | 3.12 | 6.22 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | −0.10 | <0.001 | 12.05 | 15.16 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | 2.67 | <0.001 | 12.91 | 16.02 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 13.30 | <0.001 | 7.42 | 10.46 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | 13.61 | <0.001 | 8.28 | 11.31 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | 19.52 | 0.270 | −0.66 | 2.37 | |
80 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | 32.12 | 0.897 | −1.62 | 1.42 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 46.58 | <0.001 | 18.00 | 21.03 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | 14.46 | <0.001 | 21.00 | 24.03 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 22.51 | <0.001 | 18.10 | 21.13 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | 37.67 | <0.001 | 21.10 | 24.13 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | 57.49 | 0.000 | 1.48 | 4.51 | |
120 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | 8.94 | 0.001 | 1.15 | 4.18 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 19.62 | <0.001 | 30.61 | 33.64 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | 29.45 | <0.001 | 36.16 | 39.19 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 33.29 | <0.001 | 27.94 | 30.97 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | 9.80 | <0.001 | 33.49 | 36.52 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | 22.61 | <0.001 | 4.04 | 7.07 | |
150 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | 35.01 | <0.001 | 11.78 | 14.81 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 44.19 | <0.001 | 45.07 | 48.10 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | 0.86 | <0.001 | 55.98 | 59.01 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 2.30 | <0.001 | 31.77 | 34.80 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | 5.55 | <0.001 | 42.69 | 45.71 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | 10.91 | <0.001 | 9.39 | 12.42 |
Comparisons | Estimated Difference between Means | p-Value | Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
3.5 NP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −8.53 | <0.001 | −10.09 | −6.97 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −24.72 | <0.001 | −26.28 | −23.17 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −45.77 | <0.001 | −47.32 | −44.21 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −16.19 | <0.001 | −17.71 | −14.68 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −37.24 | <0.001 | −38.75 | −35.72 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −21.04 | <0.001 | −22.56 | −19.53 | |
3.75 NP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −13.30 | <0.001 | −14.81 | −11.781 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −26.72 | <0.001 | −28.24 | −25.21 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −37.14 | <0.001 | −38.65 | −35.62 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −13.43 | <0.001 | −14.94 | −11.91 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −23.84 | <0.001 | −25.35 | −22.32 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −10.41 | <0.001 | −11.93 | −8.90 | |
4.3 NP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −2.62 | 0.001 | −4.14 | −1.10 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −6.21 | <0.001 | −7.72 | −4.69 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −12.79 | <0.001 | −14.31 | −11.27 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −3.59 | <0.001 | −5.10 | −2.07 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −10.17 | <0.001 | −11.69 | −8.65 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −6.58 | <0.001 | −8.10 | −5.06 | |
4.3 RP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −0.48 | 0.53 | −2.00 | 1.03 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −1.51 | 0.05 | −3.03 | 0.00 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −2.74 | 0.00 | −4.26 | −1.22 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −1.03 | 0.18 | −2.55 | 0.49 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −2.26 | 0.00 | −3.77 | −0.74 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −1.23 | 0.11 | −2.74 | 0.29 |
Comparisons | Estimated Difference between Means | p-Value | Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
45 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | −5.76 | <0.001 | −7.98 | −3.55 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 3.55 | 0.002 | 1.33 | 5.77 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | −8.13 | <0.001 | −10.34 | −5.91 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 9.31 | <0.001 | 7.10 | 11.53 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | −2.36 | 0.036 | −4.57 | −0.15 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | −11.68 | <0.001 | −13.89 | −9.46 | |
80 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | −5.77 | <0.001 | −7.98 | −3.55 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 4.43 | <0.001 | 2.22 | 6.64 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | −6.859 | <0.001 | −9.07 | −4.64 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 10.20 | <0.001 | 7.98 | 12.41 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | −1.09 | 0.333 | −3.30 | 1.12 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | −11.29 | <0.001 | −13.89 | −9.08 | |
120 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | −5.94 | <0.001 | −8.16 | −3.73 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 4.46 | <0.001 | 2.24 | 6.67 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | −1.35 | 0.233 | −3.56 | 0.87 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 10.40 | <0.001 | 8.19 | 12.61 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | 4.59 | <0.001 | 2.38 | 6.81 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | −5.80 | <0.001 | −8.02 | −3.59 | |
150 Ncm | 3.5 NP × 3.75 NP | −2.87 | 0.011 | −5.08 | −0.66 |
3.5 NP × 4.3 NP | 8.25 | <0.001 | 6.04 | 10.47 | |
3.5 NP × 4.3 RP | 4.05 | 0.003 | 1.84 | 6.26 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 NP | 11.12 | <0.001 | 8.91 | 13.34 | |
3.75 NP × 4.3 RP | 6.92 | <0.001 | 4.71 | 9.18 | |
4.3 NP × 4.3 RP | −4.20 | 0.002 | −6.42 | −1.99 |
Comparisons | Estimated Difference between Means | p-Value | Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
3.5 NP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −1.31 | 0.242 | −3.49 | 0.88 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −6.91 | <0.001 | −9.09 | −4.72 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −12.49 | <0.001 | −14.67 | −10.30 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −5.60 | <0.001 | −14.67 | −10.30 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −11.18 | <0.001 | −13.36 | −8.99 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −5.58 | <0.001 | −7.76 | −3.39 | |
3.75 NP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −1.31 | 0.240 | −3.49 | 0.87 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −7.08 | <0.001 | −9.27 | −4.90 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −9.59 | <0.001 | −11.78 | −7.41 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −5.77 | <0.001 | −7.96 | −3.59 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −8.28 | <0.001 | −10.47 | −6.10 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −2.50 | 0.025 | −4.69 | −0.32 | |
4.3 NP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −0.42 | 0.703 | −2.61 | 1.76 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −6.00 | <0.001 | −8.18 | −3.81 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −7.78 | <0.001 | −9.97 | −5.60 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −5.57 | <0.001 | −7.76 | −3.39 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −7.36 | <0.001 | −9.54 | −5.17 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −1.78 | 0.110 | −3.97 | 0.40 | |
4.3 RP | 45 Ncm × 80 Ncm | −0.04 | 0.972 | −2.22 | 2.15 |
45 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −0.13 | 0.909 | −2.31 | 2.06 | |
45 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −0.31 | 0.782 | −2.49 | 1.88 | |
80 Ncm × 120 Ncm | −0.09 | 0.937 | −2.27 | 2.10 | |
80 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −0.27 | 0.809 | −2.45 | 1.91 | |
120 Ncm × 150 Ncm | −0.18 | 0.871 | −2.37 | 2.00 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
de Morais, R.C.; Simionato, A.A.; Moris, I.C.M.; Leoni, G.B.; Faria, A.C.L.; Rodrigues, R.C.S.; Ribeiro, R.F. Influence of Torque on Platform Deformity of the Tri-Channel Implant: Two- and Three-Dimensional Analysis Using Micro-Computed Tomography. Medicina 2023, 59, 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071311
de Morais RC, Simionato AA, Moris ICM, Leoni GB, Faria ACL, Rodrigues RCS, Ribeiro RF. Influence of Torque on Platform Deformity of the Tri-Channel Implant: Two- and Three-Dimensional Analysis Using Micro-Computed Tomography. Medicina. 2023; 59(7):1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071311
Chicago/Turabian Stylede Morais, Renata Costa, Anselmo Agostinho Simionato, Izabela Cristina Maurício Moris, Graziela Bianchi Leoni, Adriana Cláudia Lapria Faria, Renata Cristina Silveira Rodrigues, and Ricardo Faria Ribeiro. 2023. "Influence of Torque on Platform Deformity of the Tri-Channel Implant: Two- and Three-Dimensional Analysis Using Micro-Computed Tomography" Medicina 59, no. 7: 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071311