Effects of Abutment Screw Coating on Implant Preload

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 19; no. 6; pp. 458 - 464
• Main Authors: Park, Jae-Kyoung, Choi, Jin-Uk, Jeon, Young-Chan, Choi, Kyung-Soo, Jeong, Chang-Mo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Malden, USA Blackwell Publishing Inc 01-08-2010
• Subjects: Carbon - chemistry; Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry; Dental Abutments; Dental Alloys - chemistry; Dental Implants; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation; Dentistry; Humans; implant connection systems; Materials Testing; Rotation; Screw preload; Stress, Mechanical; Surface Properties; Titanium - chemistry; Torque; tungsten carbide carbon coating; Tungsten Compounds - chemistry
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00595.x

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of tungsten carbide carbon (WC/CTa) screw surface coating on abutment screw preload in three implant connection systems in comparison to noncoated titanium alloy (Ta) screws.
Materials and Methods: Preload of WC/CTa abutment screws was compared to noncoated Ta screws in three implant connection systems. The differences in preloads were measured in tightening rotational angle, compression force, initial screw removal torque, and postload screw removal torque after 1 million cyclic loads. Preload loss percent was calculated to determine the efficacy of maintaining the preload of two abutment screw types in relation to implant connection systems.
Results: WC/CTa screws provided 10° higher tightening rotational angle than Ta screws in all three connection systems. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). External‐hex butt joint implant connections had a higher compression force than the two internal conical implant connections. WC/CTa screws provided a statistically significantly higher compression force than Ta screws in all three implant connections (p < 0.05). Ta screws required statistically higher removal torque than WC/CTa screws in all three implant connections (p < 0.05); however, Ta screws needed statistically lower postload removal torque than WC/CTa screws in all three implant connections (p < 0.05). Ta screws had a statistically higher preload loss percent than WC/CTa screws in all three implant connections (p < 0.05), indicating that WC/CTa screws were superior in maintaining the preload than Ta screws.
Conclusions: Within the limits of present study, the following conclusions were made: (1) WC/CTa screws provided higher preload than noncoated Ta screws in all three implant connection systems. (2) The initial removal torque for Ta screws required higher force than WC/CTa screws, whereas postload removal torque for Ta screws was lower than WC/CTa screws. Calculated Ta screw preload loss percent was higher than for WC/CTa screws, suggesting that WC/CTa screws were more effective in maintaining the preload than Ta screws. (3) Internal conical connections were more effective in maintaining the screw preload in cyclic loads than external‐hex butt joint connections.