Comparison of electronic versus mechanical torque‐limiting devices for dental implants: An in vitro study

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo 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.Materials And MethodsA 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).ResultsFor 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).ConclusionsElectronic 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.