Moorthy A, Aljudaibi S, Donnelly-Swift E, Polyzois I, Grufferty B. An in vitro evaluation of 2 methods for retrieving fractured abutment screw fragments from the intaglio of 4 different implant systems.
J Prosthet Dent 2024;
131:282-290. [PMID:
36096913 DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.07.005]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2021] [Revised: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
When an abutment screw fractures, there is no standardized technique for retrieving it from the intaglio of the dental implant.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the relative efficacy of a commercially available screw fragment retrieval kit with a range of standard dental instruments in regard to success and retrieval time. In addition, the effects of other variables on the success rate of screw fragment retrieval and the retrieval time required were also investigated. Finally, the integrity of the intaglio screw channel of the dental implant was also assessed following retrieval.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The abutment screws from 4 dental implant systems: Osseotite Certain, Ø4.1 mm (Zimmer Biomet); Osseotite External hexagonal connection micromini, Ø3.25 mm (Zimmer Biomet); Standard Plus Tissue Level, Ø4.8 mm (Institut Straumann AG); and Brånemark Mark III TiUnite, Ø4.1 mm (Nobel Biocare) had notches placed between the first and second coronal threads before being placed in their respective abutments, positioned in the dental implants (n=128), and tightened until the screws fractured. The dental implant specimens were placed in maxillary and mandibular casts at the lateral incisor and first molar sites on both sides. The casts were placed in mannequin heads on a dental chair and assigned to 2 experienced and 2 inexperienced operators who used 2 different retrieval kits to retrieve the screw fragments. Chisquared tests were used to determine the association between the success rate of screw fragment retrieval and the other factors recorded (α=.05), and a binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between the retrieval event and all of the independent variables. Regression models were developed to determine the factors effecting retrieval time.
RESULTS
An overall success rate of 88.3% was achieved for screw fragment retrieval. No statistically significant difference (P>.999) was found in the relative efficacy of the retrieval kits. Univariate analysis identified a statistically significant association (P<.01) in the success of abutment screw fragment retrieval between the Osseotite Certain and the Osseotite External hexagonal connection micromini implant systems. Gamma regression analysis identified significant differences between the time taken to retrieve the screw fragments and the type of dental implant (P<.001), (P<.01). The time taken to retrieve screw fragments in the maxillary arch was significantly longer than for the mandibular arch (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The commercially available screw fragment retrieval kit and the standard dental instruments were equally effective in retrieving the screw fragments. Less time was required to retrieve screw fragments in the mandibular arch than the maxillary arch. The level of experience of the operator had no effect on the ability to successfully retrieve fractured abutment screws.
Collapse