The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Displacement of scan body during screw tightening: A comparative in vitro study

  • Kim, JungHan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Son, KeunBaDa (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2020.04.04
  • Accepted : 2020.06.01
  • Published : 2020.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of displacement while tightening the screw of scan bodies, which were compared according to the material type. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three types of scan bodies whose base regions were made up of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material [Straumann Group, Dentium Group, and Myfit (PEEK) Group] and another scan body whose base region was made up of titanium material [Myfit (Metal) Group] were used (15 per group). The reference model was fabricated by aligning the scan body library on the central axis of the implant, and moving this position by the resin model. The screws of the scan bodies were tightened to the implant fixture with torques of 5 Ncm, 10 Ncm, and a hand tightening torque. After the application of the torque, the scan bodies were scanned using a laboratory scanner. To evaluate the vertical, horizontal, and 3-dimensional (3D) displacements, a 3D inspection software program was used. To examine the difference among groups, one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD post hoc test were used (α=.05). RESULTS. There were significant differences in 3D, vertical, and horizontal displacements among the different types of scan bodies (P<.001). There was a significantly lower displacement in the Straumann group than in the Myfit (PEEK) and Dentium groups (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The horizontal displacement in all groups was less than 10 ㎛. With the hand tightening torque, a high vertical displacement of over 100 ㎛ occurred in PEEK scan bodies (Myfit and Dentium). Therefore, it is recommended to apply a tightening torque of 5 Ncm instead of a hand tightening torque.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program (10062635, New hybrid milling machine with a resolution of less than 10 µm development, using open CAD/CAM S/W integrated platforms for one day prosthetic treatment of 3D smart medical care system) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (Korea); and Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology through the National Innovation Cluster R&D program (P0006691).

References

  1. Flugge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.
  2. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00214-2
  3. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK. Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:662-7.
  4. Eliasson A, Wennerberg A, Johansson A, Ortorp A, Jemt T. The precision of fit of milled titanium implant frameworks (I-Bridge) in the edentulous jaw. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:81-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00131.x
  5. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:506-15.
  6. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029
  7. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375
  8. Brandt J, Lauer HC, Peter T, Brandt S. Digital process for an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:469-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.022
  9. Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health 2018;18:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0580-9
  10. Rutkunas V, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Oral Impl Res 2020;22:237-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x
  11. Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaca JL. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17: e751-64.
  12. Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz MA, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Influence of the accuracy of intraoral scanbodies on implant position: Differences in manufacturing tolerances. Int J Prosthodont 2019;32:430-2. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6371
  13. Kim SJ, Son K, Lee KB. Digital evaluation of axial displacement by implant-abutment connection type: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:388-94. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.388
  14. Ichikawa T, Kurahashi K, Liu L, Matsuda T, Ishida Y. Use of a polyetheretherketone clasp retainer for removable partial denture: A case report. Dent J 2019;7:4. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7010004
  15. Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses. A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2016;25:580-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12325
  16. Alikhasi M, Kazemi M, Jalali H, Hashemzadeh S, Dodangeh H, Yilmaz B. Clinician-generated torque on abutment screws using different hand screwdrivers. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:488-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.004
  17. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  18. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-6.
  19. Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:30-7.
  20. Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002;11:30-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2002.00030.x
  21. Gilbert AB, Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL, Chien HH. Three-dimensional displacement of nine different abutments for an implant with an internal hexagon platform. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:781-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3678
  22. Rebeeah HA, Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy E, Clelland N, Brantley W. Comparison of 3D displacements of screw-retained zirconia implant crowns into implants with different internal connections with respect to screw tightening. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:132-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.025
  23. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
  24. Park GH, Son K, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:803-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014
  25. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  26. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.01.005
  27. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7

Cited by

  1. Accuracy of the Intra- and Extra-Oral Scanning Technique for Transferring the Intaglio Surface of a Pontic of Provisional Restorations to Definitive Restorations vol.14, pp.21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216489