Köksal Mesut, Kurt Murat, Altuncu Fuat
Private Clinic, Samsun, Turkey.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jul 2;25(1):1054. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06384-6.
As evaluating the accuracy of friction and spring type mechanical torque limiting devices (MTLDs), no previous study has eliminated eliminated operator-related error. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the accuracy of different types of MTLDs without operator error.
2 friction-type and 3-spring type were selected to evaluate accuracy of MTLDs. A total of 25 new and calibrated MTLDs, five from each manufacturer, were used for the study. To prevent operator-related errors, a device, designed by the authors and manufactured by Bahadır Medical Instruments Inc.(Sabanoglu Organized Industrial Zone, Registiration No 3003717943, Samsun, Türkiye), was used. This device is capable of simulating the dentist’s hand push movement on the torque-limiting device. A Digital torque meter was positioned on the pins located on the bottom plate of the device. After being integrated into the mechanism, each MTLD was tested 10 times. The data were transferred to the computer owing to software Mesur gauge. Non-parametric statistical methods were frequently used in this study, since it was determined that both absolute percent deviation (PerDev) and the peak torque values did not match up to the normal distribution, based on the Shapiro Wilk test results. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to evaluate the initial accuracy of the devices. The bonferroni test was used for multiple comparisons. Finally, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the performance of spring and frictional MTLDs (95% confidence interval for all statistical analyses).
According to the wilcoxon signed rank test, there was no significant difference between the target torque and the peak torque values for any of the MTLDs ( > 0.05). While Medentika showed the highest PerDev, Straumann showed the lowest. Spring type MTLDs showed more accurate results than the friction type MTLDs ( < 0.05).
All devices showed peak torque values close to the target torque. However, spring type devices showed more accurate results than friction type devices.
在评估摩擦式和弹簧式机械扭矩限制装置(MTLDs)的准确性时,以往的研究均未消除与操作人员相关的误差。本研究的目的是在无操作人员误差的情况下比较和评估不同类型MTLDs的准确性。
选择2种摩擦式和3种弹簧式MTLDs来评估其准确性。本研究共使用了25个新的且经过校准的MTLDs,每个制造商提供5个。为防止与操作人员相关的误差,使用了一种由作者设计、Bahadır医疗器械公司(土耳其萨姆松萨巴诺格鲁有组织工业区,注册号3003717943)制造的装置。该装置能够模拟牙医在扭矩限制装置上的手动推压动作。一个数字扭矩计放置在该装置底板上的销钉上。每个MTLD集成到该机构后,进行10次测试。由于使用了Mesur gauge软件,数据被传输到计算机。基于夏皮罗-威尔克检验结果,本研究经常使用非参数统计方法,因为已确定绝对百分比偏差(PerDev)和峰值扭矩值均不符合正态分布。采用威尔科克森符号秩检验来评估装置的初始准确性。采用邦费罗尼检验进行多重比较。最后,采用曼-惠特尼U检验来比较弹簧式和摩擦式MTLDs的性能(所有统计分析的95%置信区间)。
根据威尔科克森符号秩检验,任何MTLDs的目标扭矩和峰值扭矩值之间均无显著差异(>0.05)。虽然Medentika的PerDev最高,但Straumann的最低。弹簧式MTLDs的结果比摩擦式MTLDs更准确(<0.05)。
所有装置的峰值扭矩值均接近目标扭矩。然而,弹簧式装置的结果比摩擦式装置更准确。