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.

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

SCHIERANO, Gianmario
First
;
2016-01-01

Abstract

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.
2016
27
8
1026
1030
www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0905-7161
FDP; Coronaflex<sup>®</sup>; Force transducer; Implant prosthesis; Reverse hammer; Oral Surgery
Schierano, Gianmario; Manzella, Carlo; Menicucci, Giulio; Parrotta, Alessio; Zanetti, Elisabetta M.; Audenino, Alberto L.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Text correct_4aperto.pdf

Open Access dal 02/08/2017

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 916.63 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
916.63 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
clr.12671.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 535.02 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
535.02 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1555000
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact