In vitro standardization of two different removal devices in cemented implant prosthesis.

Authors:
elisabetta zanetti
elisabetta zanetti
Università degli Studi di Perugia
Assistant Professor
biomechanics, biomaterials
Perugia, Umbria | Italy

Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 Aug 27;27(8):1026-30. Epub 2015 Jul 27.

Department of Aerospatial and Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico of Torino, Turin, Italy.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the force generated by two different removal devices used to retrieve cemented crowns on implant abutments. The influence of six different operators was evaluated.

Material And Methods: Three replicated Coronaflex(®) (Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH, KaVo Dental GmbH) and reverse hammer setups were tested. The experimental setup has employed a screw bearing a diametral hole through which a loop holder passed. The screw was attached to a force transducer (Brüel & Kjaer, type 8201), and the loop holder arm was kept perpendicular to the transducer axis. The results were statistically evaluated with ANOVA.

Results: The operator has resulted to play significant influence with reference to reverse hammer (coefficient of variation 43.3%) rather than with Coronaflex(®) (9.8%). Evaluating every single operator, more variation can still be found by considering each reverse hammer (37.5%) rather than each Coronaflex(®) (8.8%).

Conclusion: Coronaflex(®) device was found to systematically reach a more repeatable and higher peak amplitude of forces compared with reverse hammer, both by experienced and inexperienced operators.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12671DOI Listing
August 2016
35 Reads
3.889 Impact Factor

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reverse hammer
16
removal devices
8
loop holder
8
hole loop
4
diametral hole
4
bearing diametral
4
88%conclusion coronaflex®
4
coronaflex® 88%conclusion
4
passed screw
4
force transducer
4
375% coronaflex®
4
attached force
4
screw attached
4
screw bearing
4
holder passed
4
employed screw
4
433% coronaflex®
4
systematically reach
4
hammer
4
gmbh reverse
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)
Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant supported crowns
Akca et al.
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2002
Use of luting agents with an implant system: part I
Breeding et al.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1992
Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper
Bresciano et al.
Clinical Oral Implants Research 2005
Current issue forum. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better?
Chee et al.
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1999
Retrievable cemented implant restorations
Chee et al.
Journal of Prosthodontics 1998
Considerations for fabrication of implant supported posterior restorations
Chiche et al.
International Journal of Prosthodontics 1991
Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw-or-cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs
Guichet et al.
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2000

Similar Publications