Limits...
In-vitro development of a temporal abutment screw to protect osseointegration in immediate loaded implants.

García-Roncero H, Caballé-Serrano J, Cano-Batalla J, Cabratosa-Termes J, Figueras-Álvarez O - J Adv Prosthodont (2015)

Bottom Line: Dynamic loading was performed in a single-axis chewing simulator using 150,000 load cycles at 50 N.Confidence interval was set at 95%.Screw Prototypes 2, 5 and 6 failed during dynamic loading and exhibited statistically significant differences from the other prototypes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: In this study, a temporal abutment fixation screw, designed to fracture in a controlled way upon application of an occlusal force sufficient to produce critical micromotion was developed. The purpose of the screw was to protect the osseointegration of immediate loaded single implants.

Materials and methods: Seven different screw prototypes were examined by fixing titanium abutments to 112 Mozo-Grau external hexagon implants (MG Osseous®; Mozo-Grau, S.A., Valladolid, Spain). Fracture strength was tested at 30° in two subgroups per screw: one under dynamic loading and the other without prior dynamic loading. Dynamic loading was performed in a single-axis chewing simulator using 150,000 load cycles at 50 N. After normal distribution of obtained data was verified by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, fracture resistance between samples submitted and not submitted to dynamic loading was compared by the use of Student's t-test. Comparison of fracture resistance among different screw designs was performed by the use of one-way analysis of variance. Confidence interval was set at 95%.

Results: Fractures occurred in all screws, allowing easy retrieval. Screw Prototypes 2, 5 and 6 failed during dynamic loading and exhibited statistically significant differences from the other prototypes.

Conclusion: Prototypes 2, 5 and 6 may offer a useful protective mechanism during occlusal overload in immediate loaded implants.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Details of prototype screw design. (A) Control screw fragment after fracture. (B) Prototype 5 screw fragment after fracture. (C) A 1.25 mm screwdriver inserted into the socket head cap of the fractured Prototype 5 screw fragment.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4414947&req=5

Figure 6: Details of prototype screw design. (A) Control screw fragment after fracture. (B) Prototype 5 screw fragment after fracture. (C) A 1.25 mm screwdriver inserted into the socket head cap of the fractured Prototype 5 screw fragment.

Mentions: Statistical comparison of the seven screw groups and their fracture strengths without prior dynamic loading revealed significantly higher strengths (P<.05) in the Control Group compared with the six Prototype Groups. A comparison of the Prototype Groups is shown in Table 2 and Fig. 5. All samples in the Control and Prototype Groups broke in the same way, leaving 2 mm of the screw shank above the implant platform (Fig. 6A and Fig. 6B).


In-vitro development of a temporal abutment screw to protect osseointegration in immediate loaded implants.

García-Roncero H, Caballé-Serrano J, Cano-Batalla J, Cabratosa-Termes J, Figueras-Álvarez O - J Adv Prosthodont (2015)

Details of prototype screw design. (A) Control screw fragment after fracture. (B) Prototype 5 screw fragment after fracture. (C) A 1.25 mm screwdriver inserted into the socket head cap of the fractured Prototype 5 screw fragment.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4414947&req=5

Figure 6: Details of prototype screw design. (A) Control screw fragment after fracture. (B) Prototype 5 screw fragment after fracture. (C) A 1.25 mm screwdriver inserted into the socket head cap of the fractured Prototype 5 screw fragment.
Mentions: Statistical comparison of the seven screw groups and their fracture strengths without prior dynamic loading revealed significantly higher strengths (P<.05) in the Control Group compared with the six Prototype Groups. A comparison of the Prototype Groups is shown in Table 2 and Fig. 5. All samples in the Control and Prototype Groups broke in the same way, leaving 2 mm of the screw shank above the implant platform (Fig. 6A and Fig. 6B).

Bottom Line: Dynamic loading was performed in a single-axis chewing simulator using 150,000 load cycles at 50 N.Confidence interval was set at 95%.Screw Prototypes 2, 5 and 6 failed during dynamic loading and exhibited statistically significant differences from the other prototypes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: In this study, a temporal abutment fixation screw, designed to fracture in a controlled way upon application of an occlusal force sufficient to produce critical micromotion was developed. The purpose of the screw was to protect the osseointegration of immediate loaded single implants.

Materials and methods: Seven different screw prototypes were examined by fixing titanium abutments to 112 Mozo-Grau external hexagon implants (MG Osseous®; Mozo-Grau, S.A., Valladolid, Spain). Fracture strength was tested at 30° in two subgroups per screw: one under dynamic loading and the other without prior dynamic loading. Dynamic loading was performed in a single-axis chewing simulator using 150,000 load cycles at 50 N. After normal distribution of obtained data was verified by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, fracture resistance between samples submitted and not submitted to dynamic loading was compared by the use of Student's t-test. Comparison of fracture resistance among different screw designs was performed by the use of one-way analysis of variance. Confidence interval was set at 95%.

Results: Fractures occurred in all screws, allowing easy retrieval. Screw Prototypes 2, 5 and 6 failed during dynamic loading and exhibited statistically significant differences from the other prototypes.

Conclusion: Prototypes 2, 5 and 6 may offer a useful protective mechanism during occlusal overload in immediate loaded implants.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus