The influence of abutment screw tightening on screw joint configuration.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Limiting abutment-to-implant hexagonal discrepancies and rotational movement of the abutment around the implant to less than 5 degrees would result in a more stable screw joint. However, the exact relationship after abutment screw tightening is unknown, as is the effect of a counter-torque device in limiting abutment movement during screw tightening. PURPOSE This study examined the orientation of the abutment hexagon to the implant hexagon after tightening of the abutment screw for several abutment systems with and without the use of a counter-torque device. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty conical self-tapping implants (3.75 x 10.0 mm) and 10 wide-platform Brånemark System implants (5.0 x 10.0 mm), along with 10 abutment specimens from the CeraOne, Estheticone, Procera, and AuraAdapt systems, were selected for this investigation. The implants were placed in a holding device prior to tightening of the abutments. When the tightening torque recommended for each abutment system was reached with the use of a torque controller, each implant abutment specimen was removed from the holding device and embedded in a hard resin medium. The specimens were sectioned in a horizontal direction at the level of the hexagons and cleansed of debris prior to examination. The hexagon orientations were assessed as the degree and direction of rotation of the abutment hexagon around the implant hexagon. RESULTS The range of the maximum degrees of rotation for all 4 abutment groups tightened with or without the counter-torque device was slightly more than 3.53 degrees. The absolute degrees of rotation for all 4 abutment groups were less than 1.50 degrees with or without the use of the counter-torque device. CONCLUSION The hexagon-to-hexagon orientation measured as rotational fit on all abutment systems was below the 5 degrees suggested as optimal for screw joint stability. The absolute degrees of rotation for all 4 abutment groups were less than 1.50 degrees regardless of whether the counter-torque device was used.

[1]  P P Binon,et al.  The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. , 1996, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[2]  J. Brunski,et al.  The role of screws in implant systems , 1994 .

[3]  R L Sakaguchi,et al.  Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. , 1995, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  E A Patterson,et al.  Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  L A Lang,et al.  The effect of the use of a counter-torque device on the abutment-implant complex. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  E A Patterson,et al.  Theoretical analysis of the fatigue life of fixture screws in osseointegrated dental implants. , 1992, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  P P Binon,et al.  The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. , 1996, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[8]  H. Saunders,et al.  An Introduction to the Design and Behaviour of Bolted Joints , 1983 .

[9]  P. Binon EVALUATION OF THREE SLIP FIT HEXAGONAL IMPLANTS , 1996, Implant dentistry.

[10]  P P Binon,et al.  Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. , 1995, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[11]  R L Sakaguchi,et al.  Nonlinear finite element contact analysis of dental implant components. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.