Search

Statement of problem: The extraction of fractured abutment screws can be a difficult challenge to overcome. Purpose: To compare the removal capacity, dental implant connection damage, and time required to remove the fractured abutment screws between three drilling techniques and a conventional method. Materials and methods: A total of 180 prefabricated screw-retained abutments were intentionally fractured in internal connection dental implants after being subjected to a cyclic load and a static compression load. Afterwards, three operators randomly removed the fractured abutment screws with the following drilling techniques and a conventional method: A: a conventional technique using an exploration probe and ultrasonic appliance (n = 45), Rhein83® (n = 45); B: Sanhigia® (n = 45); C: Phibo® (n = 45). Two-way ANOVA models were estimated to evaluate the mean time according to the method and operator used. Results: The probability of removal of the screws with mobility was twelve times higher than that of the screws without mobility (OR = 12.4; p < 0.001). The success rate according to the operators did not show statistically significant differences (p = 0.371). The location of the fractured screw did not affect removal success (p = 0.530). The internal thread of the implant was affected after the removal process in 9.8% of the cases. The mean extraction time was 3.17 ± 2.52 min. The Rhein83® method showed a success rate of 84.4%, followed by the Phibo® and conventional methods (71.1%) and the Sanhigia® method (46.7%). Conclusions: The Rhein83® drilling technique increases the removal probability of fractured abutment screws. The initial mobility of the fragment is also a significant factor in the removal success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Today's dentistry frequently employs bonded partial restorations, which are usually fabricated in ceramic materials. In the last decade, hybrid materials have emerged that attempt to combine the properties of composites and ceramics. Objectives: To evaluate in vitro, by means of a microtensile test, the bond strength between CAD-CAM restorative materials and the cement recommended by their manufacturer. Material and Method: From blocks of CAD-CAM restorative material bonded to composite blocks (Filtek 500®), beams with a bonding area of approximately 1 mm2 were made and divided into four groups: EMAX (IPS e.max CAD® lithium disilicate), VE (VITA Enamic® polymer-infiltrated ceramic matrix), LUA (Lava Ultimate® nano-ceramic resin with sandblasting protocol) and LUS (Lava Ultimate® nano-ceramic resin with silica coating protocol). In each group, perimeter (external) or central (internal) beams were differentiated according to the position in the block. The samples were tested on the LMT 100® microtensile machine. Using optical microscopy, the fractures were categorized as adhesive or cohesive (of the restorative material or composite), and the data were analysed with parametric tests (ANOVA). Results: The LUS group had the highest results (42 ± 20 MPa), followed by the LUA group (38 ± 18 MPa). EMAX had a mean of 34 ± 16 MPa, and VE was the lowest in this study (30 ± 17 MPa). In all groups, the central beams performed better than the perimeter beams. Both EMAX and VE had the most adhesive fractures, while LUA and LUS had a predominance of cohesive fractures. Conclusions: Lava Ultimate® nanoceramic resin with the silica coating protocol obtains the best bond strength values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]