Accuracy of torque-limiting devices: A comparative evaluation

• Published in: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry Vol. 117; no. 1; pp. 81 - 86
• Main Authors: Albayrak, Haydar, DDS, PhD, Gumus, Hasan Onder, DDS, PhD, Tursun, Funda, DDS, Kocaagaoglu, Hasan Huseyin, DDS, PhD, Kilinc, Halil Ibrahim, DDS, PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.01.2017
• Subjects: Dental Implants; Dental Instruments; Dentistry; In Vitro Techniques; Torque
• ISSN: 0022-3913; 1097-6841
• DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.005

Abstract Statement of problem To prevent the loosening of implant screws, clinicians should be aware of the output torque values needed to achieve the desired preload. Accurate torque-control devices are crucial in this regard; however, little information is currently available comparing the accuracy of mechanical with that of electronic torque-control devices. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to identify and compare the accuracy of different types of torque-control devices. Material and methods Devices from 5 different dental implant manufacturers were evaluated, including 2 spring-type (Straumann, Implance) mechanical devices (MTLD), 2 friction-type (Biohorizons, Dyna) MTLDs, and 1 (Megagen) electronic torque-control device (ETLD). For each manufacturer, 5 devices were tested 5 times with a digital torque tester, and the average for each device was calculated and recorded. The percentage of absolute deviations from the target torque values (PERDEV) were calculated and compared by using 1-way ANOVA. A 1-sample t test was used to evaluate the ability of each device to achieve its target torque value within a 95% confidence interval for the true population mean of measured values (α=.05 for all statistical analyses). Results One-way ANOVAs revealed statistically significant differences among torque-control devices ( P <.001). ETLD showed higher PERDEVs (28.33 ±9.53) than MTLDs ( P <.05), whereas PERDEVS of friction-type (7.56 ±3.64) and spring-type (10.85 ±4.11) MTLDs did not differ significantly. In addition, devices produced by Megagen had a significantly higher ( P <.05) PERDEV (28.33 ±9.53) other devices, whereas no differences were found in devices manufactured by Biohorizons (7.31 ±5.34), Dyna (7.82 ±1.08), Implance (8.43 ±4.77), and Straumann (13.26 ±0.79). However, 1-sample t tests showed none of the torque-control devices evaluated in this study were capable of achieving their target torque values ( P <.05). Conclusions Within the limitations of this in vitro study, MTLDs were shown to be significantly more accurate than ETLDs. However, none of the torque-control devices evaluated were able to meet their target torque values successfully.