Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Evaluation of Machining
Accuracy and Consistency
of Selected Implants,
Standard Abutments, and
Laboratory Analogs
implant hexagonal extension and its abutment counterpart has also been implicated as a factor in screw
joint instability.'"" The purpose of this study was to
evaluate the machining accuracy and consistency of
thirteen implants having external hexagonal extensions and to determine the rotational freedom
between the patrix implant hexagonal extension and
the matrix hexagonal abutment counterpart.
162
<
bntji
imn
mn
hexagonal extension from flat surface to flat surface {Fig 1). All three pairs of flats were measured
and averaged together. The greatest difference
noted between flats on the same hexagonal extension, ihe high and low values within the grouping,
along with the range of the discrepancy, are
reported. The difference between the greatest and
smallest values measured at each location is defined
as the range and is used as an indicator of machining
tolerances, accuracy, and consistency. Two piece
standard abutment collar width and collar length
were also measured (Fig 1 , Three different abutment
lengths were combined in tbe group because of
availability. The variation in like samples, irrespective of designated length, still indicate the overall tolerances that can be expected from the manufacturer
for tbis important measurement. Respective implant
a. [-,'umber 2, I
163
Action during
abutment rotation
Passive abutment/implant
hsx connection
"j K /
_ Gap G
Rotational
freedom
\ recorded
\ with
\ needie
1/
\ \
'^^"^ t 1
(
mplant hex _y
(external)
/i
Abutment
hex
(internal]
Results
164
Binon
Table 1
Siie
175'15
3 75x13
375x15
4v18
375\ia
375^10
.75x13
3.75^6
3?5<IO
375VI5
MFS
NP
STflK
3iS
3il
SO
XURK
OTC
ISS
IMTFC
SV
Mf
IMZ
SUO
4074
4.065
4 043
4 055
4 076
4 036
4.W0
4.09!
404?
4.033
4.054
3.995
4.50!
3.933
4.664
41"S
413
4.036
4.054
4.055
4.053
4.0B3
4.03B
4.091
4.087
4.046
4.095
4,062
4.0?6
4.064
4051
4.046
4.076
4.0B2
4.095
4.08!
4.043
4.099
4.056
3.995
4,061
4.060
4047
J,050
4.083
4 034
4.089
4.091
4043
4.09?
4.05
3.90
36X4
46!5
4.074
4 060
4053
4.016
4.079
4.039
4.085
4.09!
4.043
4.093
4053
3 386
4 555
msan
4.074
4.063
4.052
4.050
4.079
4.066
4.090
4.083
4.044
409!
4 055
3991
4 594
4105
stddE
0010
5002
0.005
0.004
0.D04
0003
0 003
0D04
0002
0.006
0005
0004
0 076
OOIO pMltdstddei-jS)
tjnje
D027
0005
0.011
0.009
0.00?
0007
0 009
0O10
0004
0.016
0 01!
0009
0.16!
*'s
2 326
2.075
!361
2.408
1.396
2 445
2.751
.312
2.052
!712
2.570
2 202
poolB niE3n
13
2.09iO[5,.9S|<!.78Z
15403 HartIey f max
(5,13;.051-54.B
mean
stddev
4 052
4.050
4.006
4 090
4.039
4 032
4.055
4 074
00S5
0.004
0.003
0003
0004
0O05
0.005
0 004
range
0.011
0.009
0.O7
0009
0010
0.015
0012
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
7
42
(Hailnfniax(5.7;
.051=33.6
!.B
>link-Wallaci fq5,7;
051=0.51
f=
10S.5 ^-.000
mean
stddev
4.0B6
4.090
4.009
4 092
0,003
0.003
0.004
0006
0.004
langc
0.007
0.009
0 010
0016
4.2
Hartley fini(5,4;
08
<Un^-Wailace
.05)=20.6
i(5,4;.051-096
211
P139
mean
4.05!
4 05D
4.055
slddev
0005
D0O4
O.O05
unje
0011
.009
0.012
3
1.5
<iM\ti
f^mu(5,3:
.051=15i
0.6
<Link-Wallaoe
t75
P=!14
Tlie mean. 3.991, ot the sample (rom IMZ is 20 pooled standard deviations lower than the pooled mean, 4.071, of tlie resi of the samples; and the
mean. 4.594 of the sample from BUD is 130 pooled standard deviations greater. These data do not appear on the table. The standard deviation ol the
sample trom BUD is not significantly different from the standard deviations of the cluster ot samples from XMRK, OTC, ISS, anfl SV at the .05 level:
Hartley Fmax ^ 4 a < Fmax(5,5;.O5) = 25.2
2, 1995
165
0.01
.fiation mm)
NP
0.007
SV
Sample standan
A3iS A IMP
ISS
0.OO4
A3il
SO
STRYK
OTC
XMRK
IMTEC
4.04
Table 2
4.06
Mig
Itnplant
NP
STRYK
31
375x15
3.75x13
3.75x15
4X18
4.1X8
3.75X18
3.75X10
3.75x13
3.75x8
3.75x10
3.75x15
4x13
3.5x4
3i
SO
XMARK
OTC
ISS
IMTEC
SV
IMP
IMZ
BUD
4.1
4.08
Sample mean (mm)
Mean
Range mm
SD
3.711
3.726
3.715
3.976
3.853
3.696
3.640
3.669
3.698
3.481
3.688
4.034
3.147
3.715
3.729
3.715
3.978
3.806
3.704
3.663
3.665
3.713
3.502
3.693
4.034
3.134
3.688
3.728
3.706
3.982
3.859
3.695
3.663
3.667
3.716
3.498
3.690
4.037
3.118
3.709
3.708
3.706
3.971
3.871
3.695
3.648
3.668
3.777
3.508
3.686
4.004
3.120
3.708
3.735
3.712
3.965
3.890
3.700
3.662
3.663
3.724
3.521
3.683
4.040
3.122
3.7062
3.7232
3.7108
3.9744
3.8558
3.6980
3.6552
3.6664
3.7256
3.5020
3.6880
4.0298
3.1282
0.027
0.021
0.009
0.017
0.084
0.009
0.023
0.006
0.079
0.040
0.010
0.036
0.029
0.0094
0.0077
0.0041
0.0059
0.0279
0.0035
0.0095
0.0022
0.0270
0.0131
0.0034
0.0131
0.0109
(3) IMP, IMZ; (4 3is; and (5} Bud, NP, 3il. The statistical plot is shown in Fig 9.
The least average variation between hexagonal
flat surface to flat surface measurements for the
entire sampling was recorded for 3i 3.75 mm and
4 mm implants at 1 (jm, and the greatest for
SwedeVent with 27 pm. The greatest difference
between flat to flat measurements on the same
hexagonal extension was recorded for SwedeVent
with 61 |jm, and the least for the 3-75 mm and 4
mm 3i samples at 3 pm and 4 |jm, respectively.
Analog flat to flat hexagonal extension width
varied from 2.675 mm (STD .0041) for Stryker to
2.697 mm {STD .0051] for ISS (Table 9). The average difference between analog flat to flat measurement within a given manufacturer's sample varied
from a low of 2 pm for 3i to a high of 29 |jm for
ISS. The greatest difference between flat to flat
measurements on the same hexagonal extension
166
non
0.006 .
A ISS
E.
NP
BUD
devia
g 0.004 +
A IMP
OTC
5 0.002
XMRK
S
01
CL
E
M
Table 3
0
4.455
4,465
4,475
Sample mean (mm)
NP
3i
XMRK
OTC
ISS
IMP
BUD
4,494
4,501
4,493
4.489
4.487
4.493
0.005
0.014
2.591
4.479
4.474
4.481
4.483
4.478
4.479
0.003
0.009
2.654
4.468
4.465
4.465
4.466
4,467
4,466
0,001
0.003
2.301
4.485
4.491
4.485
4.483
4.484
4.486
0.003
0.008
2.556
4.474
4.473
4.464
4.474
4.463
4.470
0.006
0.011
1.966
4,468
4,467
A74
4.469
4.474
4.470
0.003
0.007
2.082
4.457
4.460
4.459
4.457
4.468
4.460
0.005
0.011
2.418
4.475
0.004
4.493
0.005
0.014
4.479
0.003
0.009
4.466
0.001
0.003
4.460
0.005
0.011
4.486
0.003
0.008
4.477
0.004
3.6
F=
4.460
0.005
0.011
4.466
0 001
0.003
62.3
4.463
0.003
F=
4.493
0.005
0,014
8.0
4,489
0,004
2
3,0
4,486
0,003
0,008
1.6
F=
167
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
<Hartley Fmax
(5,5;.05)=25.2
>Unk-Wallace
(5,5;.05)=0,81
P=5E-11
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
12.2
2.1
mean
std dev
range
2.09<Q(5;.95)<2/782
<Harlley Fmax (5,
17.2
mean
std dev
range
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
18,4
mean
std dev
range
4.495
MFG
2
3
4
5
mean
std dev
range
w/s
4.485
6.6
^Hartley Fmax
5,2;,O5)=9,6
>Unk-Wallace
i((5,2;.05)=i.53
F=,022
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
<Hartiey Fmax
(5,2;.05)=9,6
>Link-Wallace
5,2;.05)=l,53
P=.O33
Width
NP
3i
XMARK
OTC
ISS
IMP
BUD
Mean
Range mm
4,494
4,479
4,468
4,485
4,474
4.468
4.457
4,501
4.474
4.465
4.491
4 473
4 467
4 46
4,493
4,48t
4,465
4,485
4,'J64
4,474
4,459
4,489
4,483
4,466
4,483
4,474
4,469
4,457
4.487
4.478
4,467
4.484
4,463
4.474
4,468
4,4928
4,4790
4,4662
4.4856
4.4696
4.4704
4 4602
0.014
0,009
0,003
0,008
0,011
0,007
0,011
0,0054
0,0034
0,0013
0,0031
0,0056
0,0034
0,0045
5.541
5,478
5,593
5,5t5
2,509
7,032
7,000
5.517
5.476
5.593
5.446
2.512
7,018
6,996
5,507
5,454
5,58t
5,376
2,511
6,974
7,003
5,512
5,474
5,596
5,519
2,508
6,979
7,020
5,537
5,479
5,580
5,426
2,510
7,011
7,006
5.5228
5.4722
5.5886
5,4564
2,5100
7,0008
7,0050
0.034
0.025
0.016
0.143
0.004
0.048
0.024
0,0153
0,0104
0,0075
0,0609
0,0016
0,0226
0,0092
Length
3i**XMABK*
OTC
iss-
IMP"
BUD"
"2.S mm abutment
"7,0 rnm abutment
' " 5 . 5 mm abutment
41X8
SO
3,75x10
XMRK
3,76x10
OTC
375x13
lES
3.75>;a
iMTEO
375/10
SU
375x15
M?
4x13
IMZ
1
2
3
4
5
0.670
0 672
0,6BO
0,704
0,582
0.617
0.640
0.640
0645
0633
0.622
0.616
0.630
0,622
0.560
0.650
0694
0.644
0.698
0.636
0.493
0.428
0.476
0.510
0.353
0663
0690
0.626
0.633
0.645
0.740
0738
0.712
0.712
0.710
0.596
0626
0 534
0590
0594
0546
0557
0 553
0564
0,554
0 762
0,670
0 718
0,662
0,690
0,493
0,558
l],526
0,561
0,524
0541
0517
0.565
0.537
0.550
0,656
0,754
0,671
0680
0.649
mean
std dav
langE
n/s
0,682
0,014
0,034
2.515
0635
0011
0 028
2 561
0,530
0,018
0,045
2 543
0,652
0,027
0,052
2 293
0.455
0.050
0147
2 434
0.651
0.026
0,004
2,487
0.722
0.015
0,030
I.B75
0.590
0.024
0.066
2 750
0,555
0,007
0,019
2,755
0,700
0,041
0100
2460
0,532
0,028
0,058
2,428
0.542
0.019
0.049
2?22
0,692
0,042
0,105
2 497
mian
sId ii"
range
0.682
0.014
0.034
066!
0037
0.062
0.651
0026
0.054
0.700
0.041
0.100
0.682
0,042
0105
f=
rtiean
stddev
tangi
0.635
0,011
0,028
0.630
0,018
0,045
h
0,532
0,028
0068
stdiev
rartge
0,542
0,018
0 048
f^
04
! Hartley ftnai
(5,2;05)=96
dink-Wallace
0.4
P-- 5348
The mean, 0 455, o l the sample Irom S O is over 8 pooled standard deviations tower than the pooled mean, 0.632, o l the rest of the samples so it
does not appear o n the graph; and Ihe standard deviation of that sample is signiticantly greater than the standard deviations ot the rest of the sarnples
at the ,05 leuei: Hartley F m a x - 85,4 > FmaK(5,13;,05) - 54,S, whereas withdut the sample from SO, Hartley Fman - 41,4 < Fma){(5 12- 05)=51 4
168
0.045
A BUD
A SV
dard deviation
E.
0.03
IMP
XMRK
ISS
S
m0.015
IMZ
3is
OTC
ANP
STRYK
m
en
IMTEC
0
0.575
0.525
0.625
Sample mean (mm)
0.675
0.725
A ISS
(mm)
0.06
A IMTEC
1 0.04
A IMP
"D
"
3i
Samr
Z 0.02
STRYK
,
0
0 515
0.575
0.635
NP
0.695
0.0t5-
0.01
OTC
SO
IMTEC
ISS
iat ion
JUJ]
rdd
0)
0.005
IMP IMZ
STRYK
ABUO
A NP
"
5 ampl Star
XMRK
A 3il
3is
2,675
2.685
2.695
Sample mean (mm)
Jiimher2, t995
169
2.705
Tablee
3i on
MFG
NP
STRYK
3i
SO
ISS
IMTEC
IMP
1
2
3
4
5
0,687
0 698
0.674
0.684
0.696
0.669
0.679
0.681
0.690
0.674
0.632
0.666
0.611
0.633
0.651
1.289
1.331
1.342
1,257
1.304
0.605
0.526
0.634
0.480
0.590
0.545
0.501
0.465
0.597
0.517
0.637
0.547
0.578
0.568
0.567
mean
std dev
range
w/a
0.688
0.010
0.024
2.473
0.679
0.008
0.021
2.661
0.639
0.021
0.055
2,636
1.305
0.034
0.085
2.505
0.567
0.063
0.154
2.457
0,525
0,050
0.132
2.664
0.579
0.034
0.090
2.639
0.712
0.031
7
63.0
mean
std dev
range
mean
std dev
range
0.688
0.010
0 024
0.688
0.010
0.024
0.679
0,008
0.021
0.679
0.008
0.021
0.525
0.050
0.132
0.639
0.021
0.055
0.639
0,021
0,055
0.579
0.034
0.090
0.622
0.024
5
39.4
0.579
0.034
0.090
0.646
0.018
4
18.7
2.9
Pi
mean
std dev
range
0.688
0.010
0.024
0.679
0.008
0.021
0 639
0 021
0.055
27.7
0.668
0.013
3
7.0
2.5
fmean
std dav
range
0,688
0,010
0,024
0 679
0.008
0.021
173
0.683
0.009
2
1.5
1.0
0.567
0.063
0.154
mean
std dev
range
0.525
0.050
0.132
F=
0.579
0.034
0.090
2.7
0.557
0.049
3
3.4
0.7
F=
1.6
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
2.09<:Q(5;.95)<2.782
>Hartley Fmax
(5.7:.05)=33.6
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
^Hartley Fmax
(5,5;.05)=25.2
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
Hartiey F m a x
sLink-Wailace
K(5,4;.05)=0.96
P=1E-06
pooied mean
pooled std dev (S
Hartley Fmax
(5,3;.05)=1S.5
>Link-Waliace
X|5,3;.05)=1.19
P = 0003
pooled mean
pooied std dev (S)
Hartiey F m a x
(5,2;.05)=9.6
Link-Wailace
/15,2;.O5)=1.53
P=.1387
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
<Hartley F m a x
(5,3;.05)=15.5
Link-Wailace
<(5,3;.05)=1.19
P =0.2392
The mean, 1.305, of tiie satroie from SO is over 22 pooied standard deviaBons greater than ttie pooled mean, 0.613, ot the rest of ttie sampies, so it
does nol appear on ttie graph; but the standard deviation of that sampie is not signfticantly different from liie standard deviations of the ciuster of sampies from iSS, IMTEC, and IMP. at Ihe 05 !evei : Hartley Fman = 3.4 Fniax(5,4; 05) = 20.6
170
Binan
Table 7
MFG
Implant
Flail
Flat 2
Flat 3
Mean
3.75x15
2.699
2.698
2.696
2.696
2 698
2 708
2.705
2.709
2.708
2.706
2.702
2.711
2.710
2.704
2.707
2.688
2.696
2.701
2,688
2.696
2.687
2.690
2.675
2,699
2.661
2.693
2.688
2.687
2.695
2.693
2 685
2.691
2.665
2.678
2.683
2 680
2.676
2.676
2.686
2.683
2.705
2.697
2.691
2.705
2.703
2.678
2.687
3.721
3.685
3.684
2,694
2.700
3.693
3.692
2.681
2.682
2.728
2.702
2.694
2,790
2.682
2.683
2.680
2,672
3.677
2.684
2.683
2.678
2.679
2.658
2,693
2.699
2.706
2 703
2,688
3,698
2,698
2.697
2.696
2.698
3.707
3.706
3,709
2,708
2,708
2.704
2.715
2.708
3,705
2,709
2,694
2.687
2.702
2.689
2.692
2.668
2 678
2 677
2.697
2.661
2.688
2.689
2 702
2.695
2.694
2.684
2.697
2.667
2 675
2.677
2.685
2.686
2,685
2.680
2.678
2.703
2.702
2,699
2,710
2.710
2.676
3.683
2,701
2,683
2.684
2.700
3.699
2,694
2.693
2.691
2.687
2,701
2.690
2.682
2.729
2.682
2.678
2.670
2.678
2.670
2.685
2.687
3.684
3,685
2.657
2.693
2.695
2,694
2.699
2.687
2,696
2 697
2.696
3.697
3.699
2.709
2.705
2 708
2 708
2.707
3.705
3.708
2,706
2,703
2,712
2.695
2.693
2.703
2.689
2.697
2.676
2.676
2.699
2.698
2.660
2 691
2.689
2.689
2.696
2.691
2.678
2.695
2.661
2.673
2.677
2,686
2.682
2.683
2.688
3,687
2.701
2.696
2.700
2.730
2,699
2.674
2.686
2.702
2,686
2,681
2.699
2.695
2.694
2,692
2.688
2.696
2.692
2,696
2,695
2.736
2.680
2.686
2,675
2.664
2.679
2.678
2,690
2.685
2.677
2.657
2,692
2.700
3.698
3.708
2,691
2.698
3.698
3,696
2,696
2 698
2.708
2.705
3.709
3,708
2,707
2,704
2.711
2.708
2.704
2,709
2.692
2.692
3.702
3.688
3.695
3,677
2.685
2.683
3.699
3.660
2,691
2.689
2.693
2.695
2.693
2 682
2.694
2.664
2.675
2,679
2,684
2.681
3.681
2,685
2.683
2.703
2.698
2.697
2,712
2.704
3.676
3.685
2.708
2 685
2.683
2.698
2.698
2 694
2,692
2.687
2.688
2.707
2,696
2,690
2.752
2.681
2.682
2.675
2.671
3.675
3.683
2,687
2.682
2.680
2.657
2,693
2.698
2.699
2.703
2.689
3tl
4x18
NP
3.75x15
NP
3.75 ^ 10
OTC
3.75X10
ISS
4x15
ISS
3.75x13
XMARK
3.75X18
BUD
3.5X4
SO
4.1x8
IMP
3.75x15
SV
3.75X10
STRVK
3.75X13
IMTEC
3.75x8
IMZ
4x13
171
Sample
mean
2,697
2 707
2,707
2.694
2,680
2 692
2.679
2.683
2.703
2.687
2.694
2.707
3,677
2,678
2.696
Range
0.003
0,001
0 001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0,001
0.001
0
0,002
0.003
0.007
0.004
0,003
0.005
0.007
0.009
0,001
0,001
0.005
0.019
0,014
0,024
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.001
0 015
0 001
0.003
0.007
0.006
0,006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0010
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.004
0.006
0.009
0.015
0.011
0,004
0.004
0.020
0.003
0.003
0,006
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.010
0,014
0.036
0.013
0.013
0.061
0.002
0.008
0.010
0.014
0.009
0,007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.001
0,001
0,005
0.012
0.C09
0.004
Mean
sample
range
Greatest
tiat/llat
aift
SD
0.001
0.003
0.0011
0.001
0,004
0.0015
0.004
0.013
0.0031
0.005
0.015
0.0052
0.012
0.039
0.0141
0.005
0.015
0.0023
0.006
0.036
0.0109
0.008
0.012
0.0018
0.009
0 029
0.OG6
0,007
0 047
0.0121
0.005
0,019
0.0046
0.027
0.108
0.0264
0.009
0.022
0.0046
0,006
0,033
0,0118
0.006
0.021
0.0055
Table 8
1
2
3
4
3711
3.708
3704
2.709
2.691
2.69!
2.6?6
2.61
2.66
2699
2699
2.696
2.696
2.699
2 70B
2 705
IM
!.m
%w
2.615
?.?08
2.6SS
2.6B3
mean
std dev
range
w/s
2.707
0.003
0.007
3.2
2.677
0.005
0.011
2.3e9
2697
0001
000!
1826
2.707
0.0O2
0 004
2 63S
2687
001?
003!
2646
mean
stddw
tanoe
im
nit
ISS
IMTEC
S\l
IMP
3.684
3.691
3.6S
3.995
2.962
2.677
2.635
2.693
2.699
3.690
2.6S!
3.6H
3.694
2 675
2 679
3.6B2
3.967
2.962
2,980
2.957
2.089
2.707
2.6%
2.690
2.753
2.696
2.999
2.694
2,692
2,967
2.993
2.998
2 639
2 71)3
2.SB9
3.703
3.699
2697
2713
2704
2.963
0002
3.691
2 679
0.014 0.011
0m
0.039
0.030
2 303
3 756
!.754
!.67B
0.012
am
2 542
2 707
0O26
0.064
2.21
! 694
0005
0 011
2.399
3.696
0005
0.014
3.695
2.703
0 006
0.015
2.510
2703
0.006
0.015
2.07
0.OD2
0003
0.07
f=
mean
stdde
range
2 6B7
001!
0.032
2 677
0005
0,011
2631
0014
Q3S
2.979
0.011
D030
2.679
0.013
0.30
<Hartley Fma*
0.4
f.
2.694
0.005
0.011
2696
0.005
0.014
dink-Wanace
ftl5,5..05)=0.81
0.7 P^.666
2.995 pooled mean
0.005 coaled std dev (S)
2
1.4 (Hartiey f ma*
0.6 <Link-Wallace
(5.2:.05|=1.53
07 P-- 4392
ISS2
IMP
rd devilalion (mm)
0.004
STRYK
NP
0.002
tSS1
A IMTEC
SamIe Star
3i
0
2.67
2,68
2.69
Sample mean mm)
172
2.7
2.71
mean
std dev
range
w/s
SO
STRYK
2,694
2,691
2.688
2.689
2,691
2,697
2,672
2,674
2,696
2,673
2,695
2,678
2,696
2,682
2,697
ISS1 AND ISS2
2,691
0,002
0.006
2,606
2,676
0.004
0.010
2,411
2 696
0.001
0,002
2,390
ISS2
ISS1
2,349
2.690
2,348
2.685
2,347
2,686
2,345
2,687
2,347
2,685
REPRESENT TWO
2,347
0,001
0,004
2,697
2,687
0.002
0.005
2,411
IMTEC
IMP
2,708
2,698
2,686
2,712
2,693
2,687
2,699
2,694
2,684
2,710
2,697
2,696
2,710
2,695
2,689
DIFFEBENT SAMPLE BATCHES
2.708
0.005
0.013
2,540
2,695
0,002
0,005
2,411
2,688
0,005
0,012
2,600
2,649
0,003
8
42,2
mean
std dev
range
2,696
0,001
0,002
2,691
0,002
0,006
2,887
0,002
0,005
2,695
0,002
0,005
2.688
0.005
0.012
2.691
0.002
5
30.4
1.6
mean
std dev
range
2.687
0.002
0.005
2,691
0,002
0.006
2,695
0,002
0,005
2,688
0,005
0,012
12,48
2 690
0,003
4
5.0
1.6
mean
std dev
range
F=
2,688
0,005
0,012
2,687
0,002
0,005
2,691
0,002
0,006
8 22
2,689
0,003
3
5,0
09
1.95
2,696
0,001
2
6,1
2.695
0.002
0.005
2,696
0 001
0.002
mean
std dev
range
0,6
mean
std dev
range
0,64
2,689
0,002
2
1,2
2,687
0,002
0,005
2.691
0,002
0,006
1,8
mean
std dev
range
2,676
0,004
0.010
F=
2.688
0,005
0,012
2,682
0,004
2
1,2
2,9
F=
21
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
2,09<O(5:,95
<2.782
>Hartley Fmax(5,8;
.051=37,5
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
>Hanley Fmax|5,5;
,051=25,2
sLink-Wailace
K[5,5;,05)=0.81
P=.000
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S}
<Hartley Fmax(5,d;
.051=20,6
>Link'Wallace
[5,4;.05|=0,96
P=,002
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S|
<Hartley Fmax(5,3;
,051=15,5
<nk-Wallace
<(5,3;,05)=1,19
P= 165
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
<Hartley Fmax(5,2;
051=9.6
<Link-Wallace
K(5,2:.05=1 53
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
<Hartiey Fmax(5,2;
,05|=9.6
>Link-Wallace
pooled mean
pooled std dev (S)
<Hartley Fmax(5,2;
,05)=9,6
>Link-Wallace
i<(5,2;,051=l,53
P=,002
nctard devraiions iower than the pooled mear, 2,692, ol the rest ot ttie samp[es, so it
sampie is not signilicarlly diflerert from the standard deviations ol the cluster ol sammaxl5,3;,05) ^ 15.5,
, Niiirber2,1995
173
Type
ext-hex
XRK/XRK
ext-hex
3i/3i
IMtyiML
ext-hex
ext-hex
ISS/ISS
ISS
ext-hex
NP/NP
Nobelpharma
Stryker, Steri-Oss. IMTEC, SwedeVent do not have two piece standard tiat top aDutments.
Sample Mixed Combinations
10
NP/IMP
ext-hex
NP/IMP
ext-hex
NP/3
NP/31
10
ext-hex
NP/ISS
10
NP/ISS
ext-hex
NP/OTC
10
NP/OTC
ext-hex
3/IMPL
31/IMP
10
3/ISS
ext-tiex
10
3/ISS
ext-hex
3/NP
10
3/NP
exi-hex
3/0TC
3/0TC
10
ext-hex
ISS/IMP
10
ISS/IMP
ext-hex
ISS/NP
ISS/NP
10
ext-hex
ISS/31
10
ISS/3
ext-hex
ISS/OTC
10
ISS/OTC
ext-hex
IMP/NP
IMP/NP
10
ext-hex
IMP/31
10
1MP/3
ext-hex
IMP/ISS
IMPyiSS
10
ext-hex
IMP/OTC
IMP/OTC
10
ext-hex
SO/IMP
SO/IMP
10
ext-hex
S0/3
10
SO/31
ext-hex
SO/ISS
SO/ISS
10
ext-hex
SO/OTC
SO/OTC
10
10
ext-hex
SO/NP
SO/NP
ext-hex
STR/NP
STR/NP
10
ext-hex
STR/3
10
STF1/3
ext-tiex
STR/ISS
STR/ISS
10
ext-hex
STR/OTC
10
STR/OTC
Non External Hexagonal Implants
10
SoremVent*
int-hex
SV/SV
int-octogon
CALC/CALC
Omniloc
5
XMARK
3i
Impla-Med
10
10
10
10
25
Degrees
rotation
4.0
4.8
5.0
6.7
6.7
.000
.450
.630
1.450
1.190
3.5
4.9
64
7.9
4.3
6.3
6.9
7.4
4.2
7.5
7.5
8.9
7.9
87
8.7
9.5
5.7
7.3
8.3
8.6
9.3
8.8
9.0
9.3
10.1
1.4
7.5
.960
2.93
'Excellent nonrotation. In these samples, however, the abutment patrix hexagonal extension did not seal down fully, and significant interlace deiects
can rasult between ttie abutment and implant
ments with 4.3% and the NP implant5/3i abutments with 4.9. All other combinations exceeded
5, with the most rotational freedom recorded for
the STR mplant/OTC abutment combination at
10.1 ot rotation. Two nonexternal hexagonal
combinations were also evaluated for
irtiplant/abutment freedom. The internal hexagonal ScrewVent (Encino, CA) sample measured
1.4 of movement and the internal octagonal
Omniloc (Carlsbad, CA) sample measured 7,5' of
rotational movement.
tion and the magnitude of the variation. The diameter at the head of tbe implant, for example,
requires a predictable and consistent size with
minimal variation to match with tbe abutment
counterpart in a crisp and even interface.
Inconsistencies at this interface that result in a step,
a gap, or a crevice that accumulates bacterial
plaque can result in adverse tissue responses.^"-"
Minimal variation of abutment collar length is a
mandatory prerequisite in the event that an abutment requires replacement under an existing
restoration during long term maintenance. A
replacement abutment that does not passively and
intimately contact the existing prostheses results
not only in a poor interface fit, but more shear
stress on the gold prosthetic screw, leading to
screw loosening, screw failure, or occlusal overload of the remaining implants."
Discussion
Considerable variation in machining accuracy
and consistency was noted in the samples evaluated. The clinical implications of the machining
inconsistencies are directly dependent on the loca-
174
STR
IMT
ISS
OTC
XMK
30
iSS
iMP
t>JP
Manutacturer
Fig 11
tional movement within the implant/abutment coupling once the effective screw preload has been
dissipated by vibrations and micromovement
within the screw joint as a consequence of functional loading.'^
It is the author's contention that reduction or
elimination of patrix/matrix discrepancy and its
potential for rotational movement will result in a
more stable and predictable screw joint. This is
supported by the results of dynamic tests conducted on the ITI implanl/abutment connection as
well as other typos of interfaces."' These data indicate that screw retained connections progressively
loosen and that given an intimate high precision
connection, the effects of loading can be buffered
to prevent screw loosening and abutment movement. However, the exact parameters have yet to
be determined for external and internal hexagonal
extension components. The hexagonal rotational
freedom data presented in Table 10 does provide
additional insight into the degree of component
coupling and precision currently available,
implant hexagonals greater than 2.692 mm with a
range of less than .015 mm of variation recorded
the least amount of rotational freedom when
Njniber2, 1995
1 75
0.12
0.1
0,08
;
1 reate St fi;
0.06
0.04
0.02
Table 11
3.75
"0
3i
3i
lili
.
ll l l llllilllillll
XMK r^P NP
SV
Component
Location
Mean mm
High
Low
Range mm
SD
Implant
Abutment
Head-Width
Base-Width
Hex-End
Hex-Length
5
5
15
10
3.894
4.494
3.413
1.583
3.709
4.496
2.418
1.663
3.679
4.490
2.404
1.529
.003
.006
.014
.134
,011
.002
.005
.061
Table 12
Locatioh of
Measurement'
mm
3i
4
X18
3i
3.75
X15
XMARK
3.75
X18
iMP
3.75
x15
IMZ
4.00
x13
STRY
3-75
x13
IMTC
3,75
x8
NP
3.75
X15
BUD
3.5
X4
ISS
3.75
OTC
3.75
SO
4.00
SV
3.75
x13
xiO
x8
xiO
.009
,011
,007
,012
.009
.005
.004
.037
,011
.010
.009
.007
,016
.001
.004
.001
.003
008
012
005
,019
.006
.021
.009
.022
,006
,033
.004
.013
,009
.039
OOfi
.012
.039
.007
,047
n?7
.014
,015
.027
4.6"
,036
4,0"
,036
5.0'
.036
.043
,044
.049
.052
,060
6.7"
.061
151
6.r
am
IOR
'Vaiues retiect the diffeience between the iiigh and the ioi [range] recorded at each location [or each grojp measured. The smaiier the difference
between tiie samples, tiie Lighter the machining laierances
176
Fig 13b Higiier magnification (X100) of the interface discrepancy shown In Fig 13a.
177
References
1,
1, Based on the composite index, the closest tolerances were observed for Implant Innovations
(,014 and ,015) and Crossmark (,0271,
2, The closest hexagonal width (flat to flat) tolerances were observed for Implant Innovations
(1 |jm), Nobelpharma (4 pm|, and Impla-Med
(5 |jml. The greatest tolerance was recorded for
SwedeVent (27 [jml,
3, The closest hexagonal height tolerances were
observed for IMTEC (18 fjm) and Stryker (28
^m). The greatest tolerance was recorded for
Steri-O5s(147^iml,
4, The least amount of hexagonal rotation was
observed for Crossmark (4,0), Implant
Innovations (4,6}, and Impla-Med (5,0),
5, The least amount of hexagonal rotation for mixed
components was observed for NP/Imp (3,S1,
ISS/IMP (4,21, 3/IMP (4,3"), and NP/3i (4.9},
11,
15,
16,
Acknowledgtnents
The author expresses appreciation for assistance from
Implant Innovations Inc., Crosmark, Implant Support Systems,
IMTEC Inc., Coie-Vent, Bud Ind,, and Interpore Int, for providing some of the components and materials used in the study.
Statistical analysis was provided by Cornell Ormsby,
178