Comparative Micro-CT Evaluation of Ball Attachment Compatibility in Implant and Analog Connections Using Hand Driver and Torque Wrench

Ayben Şentürk; Mert Ocak; Bora Akat

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1720354

Comparative Micro-CT Evaluation of Ball Attachment Compatibility in Implant and Analog Connections Using Hand Driver and Torque Wrench

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different tightening tools—a hand driver and a torque wrench—on the connection interface adaptation of ball attachments, at both the implant and analog levels, using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and Methods: Twenty implants and twenty analogs from two implant systems (BioInfinity, Turkey and Dentis, Korea) were used, and a total of 40 ball attachments were evaluated. Each attachment was tightened using both a hand driver and a torque wrench at implant and analog levels. All samples were scanned using high-resolution micro-CT. To assess the compatibility of the implant/analog–ball attachment connections, linear measurements at the interface were performed. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD test, and independent samples t-test, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: In the BioInfinity system, statistically significant differences were found both between implant and analog connections and between the two tightening methods (p < 0.05), with hand tightening often resulting in deeper seating. Conversely, in the Dentis system, no significant difference was observed between implant and analog interfaces, although the tightening method still had a significant effect (p < 0.05). Inter-system comparisons showed no statistically significant differences between the two systems regarding the effect of tightening tools. Conclusions: The connection interface adaptation in overdenture systems can be influenced by both the type of implant system and the method of tightening. Particularly for systems with lower manufacturing tolerances, discrepancies between implant and analog components should be considered. The choice of tightening tool plays a critical role in achieving optimal fit, which may affect the long-term success of overdenture prostheses. Further in vivo studies are recommended to validate these in vitro findings.

Keywords

References

1. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part II: the prosthetic results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:53-61.
2. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-359.
3. Kanawati A, Richards MW, Becker JJ, Monaco NE. Measurement of clinicians’ ability to hand torque dental implant components. J Oral Implantol 2009;35:185-188.
4. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:40110.
5. Scherer MD. Overdenture implants. A simplified and contemporary approach to planning and placement. Dent Today 2015;34:54,56-8,60.
6. Hemmings KW, Schmitt A, Zarb GA. Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:191-196.
7. Phillips K, Wong KM. Space requirements for implant-retained bar-and-clip overdentures. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22:516-8,520,522.
8. Lee CK, Agar JR. Surgical and prosthetic planning for a two-implant-retained mandibular overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:102-105.

9. Scherer MD. When to use laboratory vs. chairside processing of overdentures. Inside Dent Technol 2021;12:16-23.
10. Ortensi L, Martinolli M, Borromeo C, Ceruso FM, Gargari M, Xhanari E, Tallarico M. Effectiveness of ball attachment systems in implant retained- and supported-overdentures: a three- to five-year retrospective examination. Dent J 2019;7:84.
11. Lambade D, Lambade P, Gundawar S. Implant supported mandibular overdenture: a viable treatment option for edentulous mandible. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:ZD04.
12. Elsewedy M, Nabil M, Habib A. Direct versus indirect pick up of the locator retentive caps for four implant retained mandibular overdenture: (within patient study). IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2023;22:12-15.
13. Boudrias PO, Chehade A. Two-implant overdentures with ball attachments: a step-by-step approach. In: Feine JS, Carlsson GE, eds. Implant overdentures: the standard of care for edentulous patients. Carol Stream, Ill: Quintessence Publishing Co; 2003. p.129-143.
14. Sameera Y, Rai R. Tightening torque of implant abutment using hand drivers against torque wrench and its effect on the internal surface of implant. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20:180-185.
15. Hill EE, Phillips SM, Breeding LC. Implant abutment screw torque generated by general dentists using a hand driver in a limited access space simulating the mouth. J Oral Implantol 2007;33:277-279.
16. Klongbunjit D, Aunmeungtong W, Khongkhunthian P. Implant-abutment screw removal torque values between customized titanium abutment, straight titanium abutment, and hybrid zirconia abutment after a million cyclic loading: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7(1):98.
17. Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. The relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2002;28(2):67-73.
18. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes: definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10(Suppl 1):121-138.
19. Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. In vitro comparison of master cast accuracy for single-tooth implant replacement. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:562-566.
20. Dominici JT, Kinderknecht KE, Patella-Clark E. Clinical procedure for stabilizing and connecting O-ring attachments to a mandibular implant overdenture. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:330-333.
21. Worthington P, Lang BR, Rubenstein JE. Osseointegration in dentistry: an overview. 2nd ed. Chicago, Ill: Quintessence; 2003.
22. Vidal IBM, Lages FS. Dental torque wrench: relevance in implant dentistry and influence of use. Rev Estomatol 2024;32:1.
23. Singh H, Sonkesriya S, Patel BJ, Rathod V, Gupta B, Vyas T, Makkad RS. Implant abutment using hand drivers versus torque wrench. Bioinformation 2023;19:19(2):221-225.
24. Jaarda MJ, Razzoog ME, Gratton DG. Providing optimum torque to implant prostheses: a pilot study. Implant Dent 1993;2:50-52.
25. Kose OD, Karataslı B, Demircan S, Kose TE, Cene E, Aydın Aya S, Erdem MA, Cankaya AB. In vitro evaluation of manual torque values applied to implant abutment complex by different clinicians and abutment screw loosening. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:7376261.
26. Schicho K, Kastner J, Klingesberger R, Seemann R, Enislidis G, Undt G, Figl M, Wagner A, Ewers R. Surface area analysis of dental implants using micro-computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:459-464.
27. Erpaçal B, Adıgüzel Ö, Cangül S. The use of micro-computed tomography in dental applications. Int Dent Res 2019;9:78-91.
28. Min CK, Kim KAA. Quantitative analysis of metal artefacts of dental implant in CBCT image by correlation analysis to micro-CT: a microstructural study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021;50:20200365.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Prosthodontics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ayben Şentürk ^*
0000-0002-1096-4810
Türkiye

Mert Ocak
0000-0001-6832-6208
Türkiye

Bora Akat
0000-0003-2928-2526
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 30, 2025

Submission Date

June 15, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 22, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 28 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1720354

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA63BC25TP

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Şentürk A, Ocak M, Akat B (September 1, 2025) Comparative Micro-CT Evaluation of Ball Attachment Compatibility in Implant and Analog Connections Using Hand Driver and Torque Wrench. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 28 3 412–418.