Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/9275
Title: Accuracy of torque-limiting devices: A comparative evaluation
Authors: Albayrak, H.
Gumus, H.O.
Tursun, F.
Kocaağaoğlu, Hasan Hüseyin
Kilinc, H.I.
Keywords: comparative study
dental device
in vitro study
tooth implant
torque
Dental Implants
Dental Instruments
In Vitro Techniques
Torque
Publisher: Mosby Inc.
Abstract: Statement of problem To prevent the loosening of implant screws, clinicians should be aware of the output torque values needed to achieve the desired preload. Accurate torque-control devices are crucial in this regard; however, little information is currently available comparing the accuracy of mechanical with that of electronic torque-control devices. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to identify and compare the accuracy of different types of torque-control devices. Material and methods Devices from 5 different dental implant manufacturers were evaluated, including 2 spring-type (Straumann, Implance) mechanical devices (MTLD), 2 friction-type (Biohorizons, Dyna) MTLDs, and 1 (Megagen) electronic torque-control device (ETLD). For each manufacturer, 5 devices were tested 5 times with a digital torque tester, and the average for each device was calculated and recorded. The percentage of absolute deviations from the target torque values (PERDEV) were calculated and compared by using 1-way ANOVA. A 1-sample t test was used to evaluate the ability of each device to achieve its target torque value within a 95% confidence interval for the true population mean of measured values (?=.05 for all statistical analyses). Results One-way ANOVAs revealed statistically significant differences among torque-control devices (P<.001). ETLD showed higher PERDEVs (28.33 ±9.53) than MTLDs (P<.05), whereas PERDEVS of friction-type (7.56 ±3.64) and spring-type (10.85 ±4.11) MTLDs did not differ significantly. In addition, devices produced by Megagen had a significantly higher (P<.05) PERDEV (28.33 ±9.53) other devices, whereas no differences were found in devices manufactured by Biohorizons (7.31 ±5.34), Dyna (7.82 ±1.08), Implance (8.43 ±4.77), and Straumann (13.26 ±0.79). However, 1-sample t tests showed none of the torque-control devices evaluated in this study were capable of achieving their target torque values (P<.05). Conclusions Within the limitations of this in vitro study, MTLDs were shown to be significantly more accurate than ETLDs. However, none of the torque-control devices evaluated were able to meet their target torque values successfully. © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/9275
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.005
ISSN: 0022-3913
Appears in Collections:Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / PubMed Indexed Publications Collection
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / Scopus Indexed Publications Collection
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection

Show full item record



CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

18
checked on Nov 16, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

15
checked on Nov 21, 2024

Page view(s)

36
checked on Aug 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check




Altmetric


Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.