Private Practice, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
Department of Reconstruction Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
J Prosthodont. 2024 Aug;33(7):663-669. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13752. Epub 2023 Aug 29.
To determine the accuracy of new electronic torque-limiting devices (ET) when compared to new and used conventional-style beam-type (BT) mechanical torque-limiting devices and hand-piece style (HS) mechanical torque-limiting devices. The secondary purpose was to compare any difference in accuracy between new and used mechanical torque-limiting devices, and any difference in accuracy when used on a straight versus an angled screw channel abutment.
A total of five torque-limiting devices were used to obtain 2000 readings under standardized conditions. An implant analog was fastened into a digital torque meter, to which an abutment was connected. Pre-determined torque values of 15 Ncm and 35 Ncm were applied, and actual torque values were recorded. A straight and an angled abutment were used to record 1000 readings each using the five torque-limiting devices. An overall Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to compare the median deviation among devices followed by a pairwise comparison ( = 0.05).
For a target torque value of 15 Ncm on a straight abutment, the electronic device (ET) was statistically more accurate than the beam type (BT) new (p < 0.001) and used (p < 0.048) devices but less accurate than the hand-piece style (HS) used device (p < 0.001). On an angled abutment for a target value of 15 Ncm, the electronic device (ET) was statistically more accurate than hand-piece style (HS) new and used devices (p < 0.001). For a target torque value of 35 Ncm on a straight abutment, the ET was statistically more accurate than the HS new device (p < 0.001) but less accurate than the BT new device (p < 0.001). On an angled abutment for a target value of 35 Ncm, the electronic device (ET) was statistically less accurate than the beam-type (BT) new device (p < 0.001), the beam-type (BT) used device (p = 0.001), and the hand-piece style (HS) used device (p < 0.001). The electronic device (ET) was the only device accurate within the ISO standard of accuracy of 6% for each of the target torque value/abutment design combinations. There was no statistically significant difference related to the type of abutment used (angled vs. straight).
Electronic torque limiting devices (ET) are an acceptable method for delivering torque for implant restorations for straight and angled abutments at 15 Ncm and 35 Ncm torque values. Conventional style beam-type (BT) mechanical torque-limiting devices are a simple, predictable, validated, and inexpensive tool for delivering accurate torque at 15 Ncm and 35 Ncm torque values. The hand-piece style (HS) mechanical torque-limiting devices are predictable to deliver 15 Ncm torque values.
比较新型电子扭矩限制器（ET）与新型和使用过的传统梁式（BT）机械扭矩限制器和手持式（HS）机械扭矩限制器的准确性。次要目的是比较新型和使用过的机械扭矩限制器之间的准确性差异，以及在直螺丝通道和斜螺丝通道接台上使用时的准确性差异。
使用五种扭矩限制器在标准化条件下获得 2000 次读数。将种植体模拟物固定在数字扭矩计上，然后将其与基台相连。施加预定的 15 Ncm 和 35 Ncm 扭矩值，并记录实际扭矩值。使用五种扭矩限制器在直螺丝通道和斜螺丝通道接台上各记录 1000 次读数。应用总体 Kruskal-Wallis 检验比较设备中位数偏差，然后进行两两比较（= 0.05）。
在直螺丝通道上目标扭矩值为 15 Ncm 时，电子设备（ET）在统计学上比梁式（BT）新型（p < 0.001）和使用过的（p < 0.048）设备更准确，但比手持式（HS）使用过的设备（p < 0.001）准确性差。在目标扭矩值为 15 Ncm 的斜螺丝通道上，电子设备（ET）在统计学上比手持式（HS）新型和使用过的设备更准确（p < 0.001）。在直螺丝通道上目标扭矩值为 35 Ncm 时，电子设备（ET）在统计学上比手持式（HS）新型设备更准确（p < 0.001），但比梁式（BT）新型设备（p < 0.001）准确性差。在目标扭矩值为 35 Ncm 的斜螺丝通道上，电子设备（ET）在统计学上比梁式（BT）新型设备（p < 0.001）、使用过的（p = 0.001）和手持式（HS）使用过的设备（p < 0.001）准确性差。电子设备（ET）是唯一在每个目标扭矩值/基台设计组合的 ISO 准确性标准（6%）内准确的设备。与使用的基台类型（直螺丝通道和斜螺丝通道）无关，没有统计学上的显著差异。
电子扭矩限制器（ET）是一种可接受的方法，可用于直螺丝通道和斜螺丝通道的种植体修复体，在 15 Ncm 和 35 Ncm 的扭矩值下使用。传统梁式（BT）机械扭矩限制器是一种简单、可预测、经过验证且经济实惠的工具，可在 15 Ncm 和 35 Ncm 的扭矩值下提供准确的扭矩。手持式（HS）机械扭矩限制器可预测在 15 Ncm 的扭矩值下使用。
