Submitted:
13 June 2023
Posted:
14 June 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
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. North 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] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Coppedê, A.R.; Faria, A.C.L.; Mattos, M. da G.C. de; 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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 (Basel). 2018, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavorgna, L.; Cervino, G.; Fiorillo, L.; Leo, G. Di; 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 Di Ff Erent Digital Systems. 1–15.
- Cicciù, M. Bioengineering Methods of Analysis and Medical Devices: A Current Trends and State of the Art. Materials (Basel). 2020, 13, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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] [PubMed]
- 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 (Basel). 2019, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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] [PubMed]
- 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] [PubMed]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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] [PubMed]
- 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]
- 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]
- Gehrke, S.A. lexandr.; Shibli, J.A. wa.; Aramburú Junior, J.S. ard.; de Val, J.E.M. at. S.; Calvo-Girardo, J.L.; Dedavid, B.A. nin. Effects of Different Torque Levels on the Implant-Abutment Interface in a Conical Internal Connection. Braz. Oral Res. 2016, 30, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]




| Comparisons | Estimated difference between means | P-value | Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| 45 Ncm | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | 4.67 | <.001 | 3.12 | 6.22 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | -0.10 | <.001 | 12.05 | 15.16 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | 2.67 | <.001 | 12.91 | 16.02 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 13.30 | <.001 | 7.42 | 10.46 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | 13.61 | <.001 | 8.28 | 11.31 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | 19.52 | 0.270 | -0.66 | 2.37 | |
| 80 Ncm | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | 32.12 | 0.897 | -1.62 | 1.42 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 46.58 | <.001 | 18.00 | 21.03 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | 14.46 | <.001 | 21.00 | 24.03 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 22.51 | <.001 | 18.10 | 21.13 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | 37.67 | <.001 | 21.10 | 24.13 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | 57.49 | 0.000 | 1.48 | 4.51 | |
| 120 Ncm | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | 8.94 | 0.001 | 1.15 | 4.18 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 19.62 | <.001 | 30.61 | 33.64 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | 29.45 | <.001 | 36.16 | 39.19 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 33.29 | <.001 | 27.94 | 30.97 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | 9.80 | <.001 | 33.49 | 36.52 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | 22.61 | <.001 | 4.04 | 7.07 | |
| 150 Ncm | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | 35.01 | <.001 | 11.78 | 14.81 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 44.19 | <.001 | 45.07 | 48.10 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | 0.86 | <.001 | 55.98 | 59.01 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 2.30 | <.001 | 31.77 | 34.80 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | 5.55 | <.001 | 42.69 | 45.71 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | 10.91 | <.001 | 9.39 | 12.42 | |
| Comparisons | Estimated difference between means | P-value | Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| 3.5 NP | 45 N x 80 N | -8.53 | <.001 | -10.09 | -6.97 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -24.72 | <.001 | -26.28 | -23.17 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -45.77 | <.001 | -47.32 | -44.21 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -16.19 | <.001 | -17.71 | -14.68 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -37.24 | <.001 | -38.75 | -35.72 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -21.04 | <.001 | -22.56 | -19.53 | |
| 3.75 NP | 45 N x 80 N | -13.30 | <.001 | -14.81 | -11.781 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -26.72 | <.001 | -28.24 | -25.21 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -37.14 | <.001 | -38.65 | -35.62 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -13.43 | <.001 | -14.94 | -11.91 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -23.84 | <.001 | -25.35 | -22.32 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -10.41 | <.001 | -11.93 | -8.90 | |
| 4.3 NP | 45 N x 80 N | -2.62 | 0.001 | -4.14 | -1.10 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -6.21 | <.001 | -7.72 | -4.69 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -12.79 | <.001 | -14.31 | -11.27 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -3.59 | <.001 | -5.10 | -2.07 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -10.17 | <.001 | -11.69 | -8.65 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -6.58 | <.001 | -8.10 | -5.06 | |
| 4.3 RP | 45 N x 80 N | -0.48 | 0.53 | -2.00 | 1.03 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -1.51 | 0.05 | -3.03 | 0.00 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -2.74 | 0.00 | -4.26 | -1.22 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -1.03 | 0.18 | -2.55 | 0.49 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -2.26 | 0.00 | -3.77 | -0.74 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -1.23 | 0.11 | -2.74 | 0.29 | |
| Comparisons | Estimated difference between means | P-value | Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| 45 N | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | -5.76 | <.001 | -7.98 | -3.55 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 3.55 | 0.002 | 1.33 | 5.77 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | -8.13 | <.001 | -10.34 | -5.91 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 9.31 | <.001 | 7.10 | 11.53 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | -2.36 | 0.036 | -4.57 | -0.15 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | -11.68 | <.001 | -13.89 | -9.46 | |
| 80 N | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | -5.77 | <.001 | -7.98 | -3.55 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 4.43 | <.001 | 2.22 | 6.64 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | -6.859 | <.001 | -9.07 | -4.64 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 10.20 | <.001 | 7.98 | 12.41 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | -1.09 | 0.333 | -3.30 | 1.12 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | -11.29 | <.001 | -13.89 | -9.08 | |
| 120 N | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | -5.94 | <.001 | -8.16 | -3.73 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 4.46 | <.001 | 2.24 | 6.67 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | -1.35 | 0.233 | -3.56 | 0.87 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 10.40 | <.001 | 8.19 | 12.61 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | 4.59 | <.001 | 2.38 | 6.81 | |
| 4.3 NP x 4.3 RP | -5.80 | <.001 | -8.02 | -3.59 | |
| 150 N | 3.5 NP x 3.75 NP | -2.87 | 0.011 | -5.08 | -0.66 |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 NP | 8.25 | <.001 | 6.04 | 10.47 | |
| 3.5 NP x 4.3 RP | 4.05 | 0.003 | 1.84 | 6.26 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 NP | 11.12 | <.001 | 8.91 | 13.34 | |
| 3.75 NP x 4.3 RP | 6.92 | <.001 | 4.71 | 9.18 | |
| 4.3 NP x 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 N x 80 N | -1.31 | 0.242 | -3.49 | 0.88 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -6.91 | <.001 | -9.09 | -4.72 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -12.49 | <.001 | -14.67 | -10.30 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -5.60 | <.001 | -14.67 | -10.30 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -11.18 | <.001 | -13.36 | -8.99 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -5.58 | <.001 | -7.76 | -3.39 | |
| 3.75 NP | 45 N x 80 N | -1.31 | 0.240 | -3.49 | 0.87 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -7.08 | <.001 | -9.27 | -4.90 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -9.59 | <.001 | -11.78 | -7.41 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -5.77 | <.001 | -7.96 | -3.59 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -8.28 | <.001 | -10.47 | -6.10 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -2.50 | 0.025 | -4.69 | -0.32 | |
| 4.3 NP | 45 N x 80 N | -0.42 | 0.703 | -2.61 | 1.76 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -6.00 | <.001 | -8.18 | -3.81 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -7.78 | <.001 | -9.97 | -5.60 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -5.57 | <.001 | -7.76 | -3.39 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -7.36 | <.001 | -9.54 | -5.17 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -1.78 | 0.110 | -3.97 | 0.40 | |
| 4.3 RP | 45 N x 80 N | -0.04 | 0.972 | -2.22 | 2.15 |
| 45 N x 120 N | -0.13 | 0.909 | -2.31 | 2.06 | |
| 45 N x 150 N | -0.31 | 0.782 | -2.49 | 1.88 | |
| 80 N x 120 N | -0.09 | 0.937 | -2.27 | 2.10 | |
| 80 N x 150 N | -0.27 | 0.809 | -2.45 | 1.91 | |
| 120 N x 150 N | -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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).