Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Different Mechanical Complications of Implant Prosthodontics: Review Article

Mohamed Y.Abdelfattah

Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Egypt

Abstract: Nowadays implant therapy is an effective and reliable treatment with a high success rate, but various mechanical Complications can occur. Thus, the scope for prevention and management needs to be emphasized. The aim of this review article is to identify the different causes of dental implant failure due to fixture and or abutment screw fractures and to describe the management and the preventive options for these failures, so trying to assist the clinicians to plan accurately the implant-supported prosthesis treatment.

Keywords: abutment screw fracture, implant fixture fracture, implant failure

Received October 03, 2014; Revised November 11, 2014; Accepted December 25, 2014

Citation: Mohamed Y.Abdelfattah, Different Mechanical Complications of Implant Prosthodontics: Review Article. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research, 2 (6). 190-196. January 2014. doi:10.12691/ijdsr-2-6-17

1. Introduction

The longevity and success of an implant-retained or implant-supported prosthesis depend primarily on biological and mechanical factors [1]. The implant failure can be classified into early or late failures. Early failures occur shortly after surgery and characterized by the lack of osseointegration. In contrast, late failures correspond to those implants that have been regarded as successful for some time, and they occur after prosthetic restoration has been made [2,3].

There are two main causes for late implant fracture:

(a) Mechanical problems, the most frequent cause, including Metal fatigue, due to biomechanical overloading leading to loosening /or fracture of abutment or prosthetic screws and the wear and fracture of the prosthesis or various components in the system.

(b) Biological problems, loss of supporting tissue secondary to infection or peri-implantitis; the prevalence of peri-implantitis is estimated to be 4-15% among the surviving implant population (i.e., implants still in the mouth) [4,5].

The present review identifies the different causes of dental implant failure due to fixture and or abutment screw fractures and also to describe the management and the preventive options for these failures. However, to solve these complications, one needs to understand the mechanics of such components.

2. Implant Fixture Fracture

2.1. Causes

a) Mechanical overloads; as a result of:

i. Metal fatigue when the resistance limit is exceeded.

ii. Patient's physiological alterations (e.g., para functional activity).

iii. Prosthetic problems, including inadequate occlusion, the presence of distal extensions or cantilevers in implant-supported prostheses, and a lack of prosthetic passive fit over the implants [6,7,8,9,10].

b) Peri implant vertical bone loss; as a result of:

i. Chronic peri-implant inflammation.

ii. Occlusal trauma.

When vertical bone loss coincides with the apical limit of the screw, thereby joining trans-epithelial abutment to implant, the risk of implant fracture increases drastically [6,7,8,9,10,11].

c) Defects in implant design and manufacturing:

Metal fractures are related to microstructures that influence the material properties. They are related to the localized identification of chemical phases and segregations, frequently associated with failures at interfaces or components, which in turn can cause the fractures [12,13].

2.2. Incidence/Location of Implant Fracture

The incidence of dental implant fracture is between 0.16-1.5% as reported in the literature [14,15,16,17,18,19]. One study reported that the majority of fractured implants are located in the regions of the molars and premolars [7,11,20] and that the fractures were evenly distributed between the maxilla and the mandible, [12] whereas another study reported more fractures in the maxilla than in the mandible. [20]

2.2.1. Diameter of Implant

Implants with small diameters such as 4 mm [20] and 3.75 mm [12,13] tend to fracture more easily than those with large diameters, especially when placed in a posterior location. A study has reported that an implant with a diameter of 5.0 mm is three times stronger than one with a diameter of 3.75 mm, whereas a 6.0-mm implant is six times stronger than a 3.75-mm implant [20].

2.2.2. Mechanism of Implant Fracture

Coronal bone resorption observed in most implant fracture cases has been described as a primary cause of fracture [7,21,22,23] Loss of supporting bone if extended to the level corresponding to the end of the abutment screw, the bending resistance in this region will be reduced. When such resorption extends apically beyond the third implant thread, it reaches a structurally weak zone coinciding with the end of the prosthetic screw and the border of the hybrid surface. This contributes to the fatigue at a point of low resistance to torque. The warning signs of such fatigue include loosening, torsion, or fracture of the post screws, and ceramic fractures of the prosthesis.

2.2.3. Clinical Manifestations

Patients may often report spontaneous bleeding and mobility. Exploration (manually or electronically) confirms increased mobility, increased pocket depth, and gingival indexes, and occasionally, also, plaque accumulation resulting from the patient's fear of the pain is triggered by brushing. Radiologically, separation of the fragments and bone loss may be seen. It has been reported that marginal bone reabsorption seems to be the most important risk factor indicating the start of an implant fracture, and may often extend beyond the actual fracture line [12]. Thus, an x-ray study is very useful.

For diagnostic purposes, the fracture risk factors have been grouped into three main categories [Table 1]. In the presence of more than three factors pertaining to one or more of these categories, the risk of fracture is high. [24]

Table 1. Clinical findings frequently documented in the literature and related to implant fracture, grouped by categories

2.3. Management

There are three management options in the event of an implant fracture: [12,25]

a) Complete removal of the fractured implant using explanation trephines [12,25]. After the removal of the fractured implant, a new larger diameter implant can be installed at the same surgical bed or at another place to achieve primary stability [22] Their complete removal is considered to be the best solution to the problem

b) Removal of the coronal portion of the fractured implant with the purpose of placing a new prosthetic post [12,25]. It is essential to radiologically confirm the absence of radio transparency and to electronically determine the mobility of the fragment. A prosthetic post should be considered only if there is still sufficient remaining internal thread retention [12].

c) Removal of the coronal portion of the fractured implant, leaving the remaining apical part integrated in the bone [12,25] and the missing tooth/teeth can be restored using conventional prosthodontic procedures like removable partial denture, fixed partial denture etc.

A recent study described "apicoectomy" as a suitable technique for removing fractured implants and inserting new implants at the same clinical session. This technique was based on opening a hole in the bone in order to improve the visualization of the apical fragments of the fractured implants and to remove those fragments through this hole. Afterward, a new implant is placed in a conventional manner, and the hole is closed by using the same bone that is removed from the patient [26].

2.3.1. Preventive Measures

The following preventive measures have been suggested:

a) Avoid placing hybrid-type implant fixtures.

b) Carefully control occlusal forces: Eliminate all posterior contacts in mandibular eccentric movements

c) Perform staggered placement of implants: Avoid a straight-line configuration

d) Avoid or minimize posterior cantilevers and buccolingual offsets, particularly in partially edentulous patients

e) During the chronic loosening of gold or abutment screws or the fracture of components, critically reassess the prosthesis, retighten the abutment or use a gold screw, and check the fit.

f) Pronounced bruxers or clenchers who have experienced multiple implant fractures should be managed by the placement of additional implants fractures [20].

g) Ensure perfect fit: Resolder and assess passive fit [27].

2.4. Implant-Abutment Connection System

Two types of screws are used in implant dentistry: abutment screws and prosthetic screws. Abutment and prosthetic screws come in various shapes and sizes and are made from a variety of materials, including gold, commercially pure titanium, and surface-treated or coated titanium alloys. Although seemingly simple, the mechanics of abutment and prosthetic screws are complex, a phenomenon described as screw joint mechanics [28].

The misfit at the abutment-implant interface and the absence of a passive adaptation between the prosthesis and the abutment can lead to fracture and the most common technical complication is a fracture of the abutment screw.

The stability of the implant abutment connection is influenced by factors such as internal connection versus external connection, screw head design, screw geometry, materials, screw diameter, preload, joint separating force, settling effect, and overall screw mechanics.

Factors affecting the implant-abutment connection system are as follows:

2.4.1. Internal Connection versus External Connection

The implant-abutment interface connection is generally described as an internal or external connection. Relative to external connections, the internal implant-abutment connections have been shown to present a higher stability and improved force distribution as a result of :

a) The internal implant-abutment connections have the ability to dissipate lateral loads deeply within the implant, there by shielding the abutment screw better from stress.

b) The longer internal wall engagement that creates a stiff, integrated body to resist joint opening (micro movement) [29,30].

c) After cyclic loading the internal abutment connection is stronger relative to external connections [31,32].

While mechanical strength is gained, the thinner lateral fixture wall at the connecting part of the internal connections may lead to a higher absolute strain value at the cervical area. Such stress shift has raised concerns regarding an increased risk of marginal bone resorption or fixture fracture [33].

Although there are studies that show that the fracture strength in implant systems with an external fixation is equal or superior to those with internal fixation [34,35].

The literature supports a gold alloy screw with a flat head, internal hex or square, and a high tightening force (torque driver) as having the greatest ability to produce the best results [36].

2.4.2. Screw Head Design

• To maximize the preload and minimize the loss of input torque to friction, the head of the screw should be wider than the thread diameter.

• An abutment head most often should be flat. A tapered head design reduces the clamping effect and reduces the tensile force in the threads of the screw. The tapered screw head distorts and aligns non passive components and gives a non passive casting the appearance of proper fit. However, the superstructure is not deformed permanently and leads to stress in the system. A flat-head screw distributes forces more evenly within the threads and the head of the screw, and is also less likely to distort a non passive casting. As such, the abutment head should also be flat on top to increase the clamping force in the screw head and the tensile force in the threads [37].

2.4.3. Screw Material

The most commonly used retaining screws are either of gold or titanium. Gold screws are designed to be the most "flexible" portion of the implant assembly. Due to their higher modulus of elasticity than titanium, they permit an adequate micro movement to distribute force to the implant body [38]. Implant posts, that are retained with gold or gold coated screws, show a reduction of screw loosening and improved clamping force in comparison with titanium screws [39,40].

Titanium alloy has four times the bending fracture resistance of grade 1 titanium. Therefore, abutment screws made of grade 1 titanium will deform and fracture more easily than the alloy. A higher torque magnitude can be used on the titanium alloy abutment screw and implant body [39]. Titanium retaining screws are stronger than gold, but have a lower modulus of elasticity; metal fatigue will produce a gold screw fracture before the titanium retaining screw is affected. [41] The major disadvantage of titanium retaining screws is their tendency to cause galling, which results in excessive friction between the two mating surfaces thereby causing a localized welding with a further roughening of the mating surfaces. [42] Galling occurs in the following manner: Titanium of the retaining screw slides in contact with the titanium of the implant body, the coefficient of friction increases whereby titanium molecules transfer from the mating surfaces. [43] This has been described as the adhesive wear mechanism [44] which causes slight damage to both the implant body and the retaining screw threads.

2.4.4. Screw Diameter

The greater the diameter, the higher the preload that may be applied and the greater the clamping force on the screw joint. As a general rule, abutment screws loosen less often and can take a higher preload than coping screws [45].

2.4.5. Preload

The screw joint has been described as two parts tightened together by a screw, such as an abutment and implant being held together by a screw. The initial clamping force, or preload, is the tensile force that develops when the screw is tightened into place. Preload depends on the torque applied, material, and design of the screw, and surface roughness [46]. Frictional forces that develop between the screw threads make the applied torque inversely proportional to the preload, so the more torque that is applied, the more preload is lost [47,48]. If the torque delivered to a screw is not optimal, screw loosening may occur, making the system susceptible to fracture under occlusal load. As a screw is tightened, it elongates, thereby producing tension. Elastic recovery of the screw pulls the two parts together, creating a clamping force [49]. Excessive forces cause slippage between the threads of the screw and the threads of the bone, resulting in the loss of the preload [50]. Fractured abutment and prosthetic screws are a challenging and time-consuming complication in implant dentistry [51]. When a screw fractures, the fragment inside the implant or abutment must be removed, or the implant must be modified. Otherwise, it may lose its original ability to retain prosthesis and could become useless [50].

2.4.6. Joint Separating Forces

Intra oral separating forces may include off-axis occlusal contacts, lateral excursive contacts, interproximal contacts between natural teeth and implant restorations, protrusive contacts, para functional forces, and non passive frameworks that attach to the implants. Opposing the clamping force is a joint-separating force, which attempts to separate the screw joint. Screw loosening occurs when the joint-separating forces acting on the screw joint are greater than the clamping forces holding the screw unit together [41].

2.4.7. Settling effect

Settling occurs as the rough spot interfaces flatten under load/micro movements, since they are the only contacting surfaces when the initial tightening torque is applied [51]. It has been reported that 2-10% of the initial preload is lost as a result of settling [52]. This reduction effect is known as embedment relaxation [53].

2.4.8. Process of Screw Loosening

The process of screw loosening has been described in two stages [54]. Initially, external forces such as mastication applied to the screw joint causes slippage, contributing to the release of preload of the screw. The second stage of loosening involves continual preload reduction below critical level, allowing threads to turn and the loss of intended screw joint junction [55].

2.4.9. Incidence of Screw Loosening

A literature review of clinical complications of osseointegrated implants showed that screw loosening or screw fracture varied from 2 to 45% of the implant restorations, with the highest amount in single crowns [8]. In one of the systematic reviews that evaluated the 5-year survival rates of implant-supported single crowns, it was observed that from the 26 clinical studies included, the cumulative incidence of abutment screw or abutment loosening was 7.3% after 5 years of clinical service in both external and internal connections [56].

2.4.10. Location of Screw Loosening

Posterior abutment screws loosen at a higher percentage than anterior implants. This supports the project of eliminating unnecessary occlusal and off-axial forces on implant-supported restorations [36]. One of the studies have reported a 38% loosening of single implant restorations in the posterior maxilla and mandible, but such studies do not take into account various important factors [57].

2.4.11. Preventive Management

a) It is recommended in clinical practice that in order to reduce the settling effect, the implant screws should be retightened 10 min after the initial torque application [58,59,60,61].

b) Mechanical torque gauges should be used instead of hand drivers to ensure a consistent tightening of the implant components to recommended torque values [51].

c) The use of sealers to fill in the gaps between these crews and implant threads and adhesives to increase the frictional resistance has been suggested to reduce screw loosening. (Ceka Bond, Preat, San Mateo, CA) is listed as an adhesive paste on the package insert. [62]

d) Cho et al 2004 [36] supported the following clinical recommendations:

i. Ensure that implants are placed perpendicular to the occlusal plane.

ii. Frameworks should have minimal cantilever lengths.

iii. Use components with low tolerance levels for component misfit.

iv. Use components with anti rotational features for single tooth restorations.

2.4.12. Clinical Techniques to manage Fractured Abutment Screws

Generally, treatment or intervention should always mitigate future risk and improve the prognosis [62]. In certain situations, however, the intervention itself may be the biggest risk factor. In reviewing published studies, some techniques have been found to be clearly more likely to cause irreversible damage to the implant components and should therefore be considered higher risk procedures. Because a direct relationship exists between the risk of damage and degree of difficulty, the clinician must understand not only the technique itself but also the inherent risks and difficulty associated with each technique

2.4.13. Examination and Diagnosis

The first step in managing any fractured screw is to obtain a detailed history and perform a thorough clinical examination. Every attempt should be made to determine the cause of the screw fracture to minimize the risk of subsequent complications. The next important step is to confirm that the screw is fractured and determine the location of the fracture. Generally, fractures that occur above the implant level are easier to manage than fractures occurring more apically. Screw fracture may be confirmed by direct visualization, radiographic examination, tactile sensation through the use of an instrument, comparison with an undamaged screw of the same system, or by using other undamaged components of the same system to see if an obstruction is prohibiting complete seating. If the restoration has been missing for an extended period, the peri-implant soft tissue may overgrow, making access to and visualization of the implant difficult. In this situation, a low-frequency diode laser may be used to trim the tissue and expose the implant platform. Use of an electrosurgery unit or scalpel should be avoided to avoid any heat transfer within the implant or scratching of the implant surface. Other techniques that may help to improve visualization include the use of dental loupes with a coaxial or light-emitting diode headlamp or a dental surgical microscope, especially in situations with deep screw fractures [63,64].

The application of risk-based decision-making plan, in relation to the various reported techniques for managing fractured screws may allow for a logical and structured approach in managing fractured abutment and prosthetic screws.

2.4.14. Low Risk: Basic Instrumentation and Instrument Modification

Once the appropriate examination and diagnostic steps are complete, a tentative plan should be established using the proposed decision making tree [1,65,66,67,68,69]. A small rigid instrument such as a scaler, sickle explorer, or endodontic explorer was the initial instrument of choice for rotating the remaining apical portion counterclockwise and removing the fractured fragment. Oblique fractures may be easier to manage with this technique because a purchase point usually exists in which the instrument may be engaged. Although this is considered a low-risk choice, care should always be used in engaging the broken segment with any instrument because the instrument may fracture or damage the internal threads of the implant. Flexible instruments such as endodontic files or modified instruments should be used with caution because of the decreased strength of the instrument. If the fractured segment does not move with use of a hand instrument, an ultrasonic scaler can be used to loosen the screw [67]. This technique can be used in conjunction with standard instrumentation or in an alternating fashion, but care must always be taken not to damage the internal threads of the implant. In addition, this method should only be attempted a few times to ensure that the broken segment is not wedged further into the implant. Sometimes, even after the screw has been loosened, it is still difficult to grasp and remove. If a loose fragment is near the platform, a cotton tip applicator may be used as a driver, as the cotton threads can often grip the fragment, making removal easier [69].

2.4.15. Moderate Risk: Screw Modification

If the remaining screw fragment cannot be rotated with basic hand instruments, it may be rotated using rotary instruments [50,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. This can be done by introducing a bur, a drill, or a trephine mounted on a handpiece into the internal chamber of the implant until it contacts the screw fragment. Then, as it is rotated counterclockwise, it may unwind the screw fragment [71,72]. If the screw fragment cannot be engaged with an instrument, a dimple or access point can be created using a ½ round bur mounted on a handpiece under copious irrigation; this dimple may be modified into a slot for better engagement [50,75,78,80]. Furthermore, burs and instruments may also be modified to allow for better engagement of the fragment and to prevent damage to the implant [72,75]. Aftermarket screw retrieval kits are available, including Fragment Fork (Astra Tech; Dentsply Sirona), ITI Dental Implant System (Institut Straumann AG), IMZ TwinPlus Implant System1 (Dentsply Sirona), Screw Removal Kit Replace (Nobel Biocare), and Certain-Screw Removal Kit (Biomet 3i). These kits may be helpful when low-risk techniques have been unsuccessful [74,77,80]. If all attempts at rotating the screw fragment fail, it may be drilled out completely, although this technique requires a high degree of attention and care to prevent damage. Specialized systems and drill guides are important in these situations, and a screw tap tool may become necessary [79]. An important consideration when removing a fractured screw is not to damage the internal threads of the implant, so care must always be taken whenever a rotary instrument is introduced into the internal chamber of the implant [80,81]. The use of drill guides or sleeves can help stabilize the drill and subsequently reduce the risk of damage to the internal threads [50,73,76,81]. Furthermore, there is a high risk of heat generation whenever screws are drilled, and for that reason, drilling should be performed intermittently at a reduced speed with copious irrigation [74,78].

2.4.16. High Risk: Implant Modification

In situations where removal of the screw fragments is not possible using a low- or moderate-risk technique, intentional modification of the implant may be necessary to keep the implant serviceable [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]. If the internal aspect of the implant is significantly damaged or the screw fragment is irretrievable, the clinician may choose to remove the implant and place a new one. However, this decision can be influenced by financial factors, patient experience, and patient willingness to undergo additional surgery. An implant in such situations may also be completely buried in soft tissue, an option that may require the fabrication of a new prosthesis, and may compromise function and/or esthetics [90,91]. If the patient is unwilling to sacrifice an irreversibly damaged implant, attempts can be made to maintain the use of this implant by retapping the internal threads once the irretrievable screw fragment is drilled out. This can be accomplished with the use of specific retapping tools and may require alternative or modified parts to successfully restore the implant in question [81,83,86].

If all attempts fail and the patient is still unwilling to sacrifice the implant, a custom cast post and core may be fabricated for the implant .These techniques generally start with the removal of remaining screw fragment, followed by removal of the internal threads of the implant by using a diamond rotary instrument or tungsten carbide bur in a high-speed handpiece under copious irrigation. An autopolymerizing acrylic resin pattern can either be made directly on the prepared implant or indirectly on a stone cast. The pattern is then cast using nickel- or cobalt-chromium alloys, although other types of metal alloys have also been reported [82,83,88,89,90]. Once the seating of the custom cast post and core has been confirmed, it can be cemented. The appropriate restoration can then be fabricated following conventional prosthodontic protocols.

3. Conclusion

In the present review, in order to present a complete picture, various clinical as well as in vitro studies on the mechanics of implant fixture fracture and abutment screw loosening/fracture of a single implant-abutment connection have been reviewed. The incidence of such complications is very small and the literature is still not conclusive concerning the choice of connection and/or crown-retaining system. However, understanding the mechanics of these failures will help the clinicians in formulating a more predictable treatment.

References

[1]   | Satterthwaite J, Rickman L. Retrieval of a fractured abutment screw thread from an implant: a case report. Br Dent J2008; 204: 177-80.
[2]   | Carlson B, Carlsson GE. Prosthodontic complications in osseointegrated dental implant treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1994; 9: 90-4.
[3]   | Brägger U, Karoussis I, Persson R, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Lang N. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res2005; 16: 326-34.
[4]   | Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg1981; 10: 387-416.
[5]   | Balshi TJ. Preventing and resolving complications with osseointegrated implants. Dent Clin North Am 1989; 33: 821-68.
[6]   | Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M, Vaia E, Matarasso S. Hollow implants retrieved for fracture: A light and scanning electron microscope analysis of 4 cases. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 185-9.
[7]   | Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: A retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 326-34.
[8]   | Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 537-52.
[9]   | Kronström M, Svenson B, Hellman M, Persson GR. Early implant failures in patients treated with Brånemarksystem titanium dental implants: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 201-7.
[10]   | Flanagan D. External and occlusal trauma to dental implants and a case report. Dent Traumatol 2003; 19: 160-4.
[11]   | Uribe R, Peñarrocha M, Sanchis JM, García O. Marginal peri-implantitis due to occlusal overload. A case report. Med Oral 2004; 9: 159-62.
[12]   | Balshi TJ. An analysis and management of fractured implants: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11: 660-6.
[13]   | Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK. Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 662-7.
[14]   | Jemt T, Lekholm U. Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: A 5-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 635-40.
[15]   | Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 949-56.
[16]   | Gunne J, Jemt T, Lindén B. Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: A report on prostheses after 3 years. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 143-8.
[17]   | Lekhom U, van Steenberghe D, Herrmann I, Bolender C, Folmer T, Gunne J, et al. Osseo integrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: A prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1994; 9: 627-35.
[18]   | Pylant T, Triplett RG, Key MC, Brunsvold MA. A retrospective evaluation of endosseous titanium implants in the partially edentulous patient. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7: 195-202.
[19]   | Piattelli A, Scarano A, Piattelli M. Histologic observations on 230 retrieved dental implants: 8 years’ experience (1989-1996). J Periodontol 1998; 69: 178-84.
[20]   | Kwon K, Sim K, Cha J, Kim E, Lee J. Clinical and scanning electron microscopic analysis of fractured dental implants: A retrospective clinical analysis. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 38: 371-8.
[21]   | Muroff FI. Removal and replacement of a fractured dental implant: Case report. Implant Dent 2003; 12: 206-10.
[22]   | Gargallo Albiol J, Satorres-Nieto M, Puyuelo Capablo JL, Sánchez Garcés MA, Pi Urgell J, Gay Escoda C. Endosseous dental implant fractures: An analysis of 21 cases. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008; 13: E124-8.
[23]   | Morgan MJ, James DF, Pilliar RM. Fractures of the fixture component of an osseointegrated implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 409-14.
[24]   | Sánchez-Pérez A, Moya-Villaescusa MJ, Jornet-Garcia A, Gomez S. Etiology, risk factors and management of implant fractures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 15: 504-8.
[25]   | Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: A study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991; 6: 270-6.
[26]   | Gealh WC, Mazzo V, Barbi F, Camarini ET. Osseo integrated implants fracture: Causes and treatment. J Oral Implantol 2010; 37: 499-503.
[27]   | Santos MD, Pfeifer AB, Silva MR, Sendyk CL, Sendyk WR. Fracture of abutment screw supporting a cemented implant-retained prosthesis with external hexagon connection: A case report with sem evaluation. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15: 148-51.
[28]   | Mc Glumphy EA, Mendel DA, Holloway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998; 42: 71-89.
[29]   | Sailer I, Sailer T, Stawarczyk B, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH. In vitro study of the influence of the type of connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 850-8.
[30]   | Da Silva EF, Pellizzer EP, QuinelliMazaro JV, Garcia Júnior IR. Influence of the connector and implant design on the implant-tooth-connected prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12: 254-62.
[31]   | Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88: 604-10.
[32]   | Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: A short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 75-8.
[33]   | Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 1276-84.
[34]   | Balfour A, O’Brien GR. Comparative study of anti rotational single tooth abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 73: 36-43.
[35]   | Möllersten L, Lockwandt D, Lindén LA. Comparison of strength and failure mode of seven implant systems: An in vitro test. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 582-91.
[36]   | Cho SC, Small PN, Elian N, Tarnow D. Screw loosening for standard and wide diameter implants in partially edentulous cases: 3- to 7-year longitudinal data. Implant Dent 2004; 13: 245-50.
[37]   | Shetty M, Krishna Prasad D, Shetty NH, Jaiman R. Implant abutment connection: Biomechanical Perspectives. NUJHS 2014; 4: 47-53.
[38]   | Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 19-31.
[39]   | Scholander S. A retrospective evaluation of 259 single-tooth replacements by the use of Branemark implants. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 483-91.
[40]   | Jörnéus L, Jemt T, Carlsson L. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7: 353-9.
[41]   | Mc Glumphy EA, Mendel DA, Holloway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998; 42: 71-89.
[42]   | Al Jabbari Y, Fournelle R, Ziebert G, Toth J, Iacopino A. Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 2: Metallurgical and micro hardness analysis. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 181-91.
[43]   | Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different screw materials and surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 24-32.
[44]   | AlJabbari Y, Fournelle R, Ziebert G, Toth J, Iacopino AM. Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 1: Characterization of adhesive wear and structure of retaining screws. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 168-80.
[45]   | Misch C. Principles for abutment and prosthetic screws and screw-retained components and prostheses. In: Misch CE, editor. Dental Implant Prosthetics. San Luis. Elsevier Mosby; 2014. 2nd. ed. p. 730.
[46]   | Khraisat A, Abu-Hammad O, Al-Kayed AM, Dar-Odeh N. Stability of the implant/abutment joint in a single-tooth external-hexagon implant system: clinical and mechanical review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004; 6: 222-9.
[47]   | Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA. Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 592-9.
[48]   | Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T, Coffey JP. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1995; 10: 529-36.
[49]   | Lang JA, May KB, Wang RF. The effect of the use of a counter-torque device on the abutment-implant complex. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 411-7.
[50]   | Satwalekar P, Chander KS, Reddy BA, Sandeep N, Sandeep N, Satwalekar T. A simple and cost effective method used for removal of a fractured implant abutment screw: a case report. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5: 120-3.
[51]   | Winkler S, Ring K, Ring JD, Boberick KG. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: An over view. J Oral Implantol 2003; 29: 242-5.
[52]   | Sakaguchi RL, Borgersen SE. Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 295-302.
[53]   | Shigley IE, Mischkc CR. Standard Handbook of Machine Design. 1st.ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1986. p. 23-26.
[54]   | Bickford JH. An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints, Revised and Expanded. New York1997: 3rd Edition, Kindle Edition.Taylor& Francis Group. P: 175-286.
[55]   | Wiskott HW, Nicholls JI, Belser UC. Stress fatigue: Basic principles and prosthodontic implications. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8: 105-16.
[56]   | Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 119-30.
[57]   | Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74: 51-5.
[58]   | Fugazzotto PA, Kirsch A, Ackermann KL, Neuendorff G. Implant/Tooth connected restorations utilizing screw -fixed attachements: A survey of 3,096 sites in function for 3 to 14 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1999; 14: 819-23.
[59]   | Begona Ormeachea M, Millstein P, Hirayama H. Tube angulation effect on radiographic analysis of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 77-85.
[60]   | Bakaeen LG, Winkler S, Neff PA. The effect of implant diameter, restoration design, and occlusal table variations on screw loosening of posterior single-tooth implant restorations. J Oral Implantol 2001; 27: 63-72.
[61]   | Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2002; 28: 67-73.
[62]   | Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Nelson EW, Tietge JD. Torque required to loosen single-tooth implant abutment screws before and after simulated function. Int J Prosthodont 1993: 6: 435-9.
[63]   | Patel RD, Kan JY, Jonsson LB, Rungcharassaeng K. The use of a dental surgical microscope to aid retrieval of a fractured implant abutment screw: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2010; 19: 630-3.
[64]   | Murat Kurt, Ahmet Umut Güler, İbrahim Duran, A Technique for Removal of a Fractured Implant Abutment Screw, Journal of Oral Implantology. 2013; 39(6): 723-725.
[65]   | Satwalekar P, Chander KS, Reddy BA, Sandeep N, Sandeep N, Satwalekar T. A simple and cost effective method used for removal of a fractured implant abutment screw: a case report. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5: 120-3.
[66]   | Fauvell SA, Gialanella G, Penna KJ. The Lumen Technique. Retrieval of broken gold screws in dental implants. NY State Dent J 2006; 72: 43.
[67]   | Reyhanian A, Parker S, Moshonov J, Fuhrman N. The use of Er: YAG in laser-assisted broken abutment screw treatment. Case report_Er: YAG. Lasers 2010; 3: 6-11.
[68]   | Bhandari S, Aggarwal N, Bakshi S. Ultrasonic oscillations for conservative retrieval of a rare fracture of implant healing abutment. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 475-8.
[69]   | Barbosa JM, Ascenso J, Hirata R, Caramês J. The cotton driver: an alternative technique for removing fractured screw fragments. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 1601-2.
[70]   | Ow RK, Ho KH. Retrieval of the resilient element in an osseointegrated implant system. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 93-5.
[71]   | Biller H. Removing broken abutment screws from internally threaded implants. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69: 344.
[72]   | Lau YH, and Pang IC.A modified instrument for removing a fractured abutment screw. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 542.
[73]   | Rosen H. Salvaging endosseous implants with fractured abutment screws. Implant Dent 1995; 4: 174-6.
[74]   | Luterbacher S, Fourmousis I, Lang NP, Brägger U. Fractured prosthetic abutments in osseointegrated implants: a technical complication to cope with. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 163-70.
[75]   | Williamson RT, Robinson FG. Retrieval technique for fractured implant screws. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 549-50.
[76]   | Nergiz I, Schmage P, Shahin R. Removal of a fractured implant abutment screw: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004 Jun; 91: 513-7.
[77]   | Yilmaz B, McGlumphy E. A technique to retrieve fractured implant screws. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 105: 137-8.
[78]   | Taira Y, Sawase T. A modified technique for removing a failed abutment screw from an implant with a custom guide tube. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38: 165-9.
[79]   | Gooty JR, Palakuru SK, Guntakalla VR, Nera M. Noninvasive method for retrieval of broken dental implant abutment screw. Contemp Clin Dent 2014; 5: 264-7.
[80]   | Walia MS, Arora S, Luthra R, Walia PK. Removal of fractured dental implant screw using a new technique: a case report. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38: 747-50.
[81]   | Imam AY, Moshaverinia A, Chee WW, McGlumphy EA. A technique for retrieving fractured implant screws. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111: 81-3.
[82]   | Pipko DJ, Kukunas S, Ismail YH. Retrofitting a cast dowel-core on salvaged dental implants. J Prosthodont 2004; 13: 52-4.
[83]   | Pow EH, Wat PY. A technique for salvaging an implant-supported crown with a fractured abutment screw. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95: 169-70.
[84]   | Santos MD, Pfeifer AB, Silva MR, Sendyk CL, Sendyk WR. Fracture of abutment screw supporting a cemented implant-retained prosthesis with external hexagon connection: a case report with sem evaluation. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15: 148-51.
[85]   | Maalhagh-Fard A, Jacobs LC. Retrieval of a stripped abutment screw: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104: 212-5.
[86]   | Imam AY, Yilmaz B, Özçelik TB, McGlumphy E. Salvaging an angled implant abutment with damaged internal threads: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 287-90.
[87]   | Yilmaz B, McGlumphy E. A technique to salvage a single implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis having a nonretrievable implant screw fragment. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 81-3.
[88]   | Canpolat C, Ozkurt-Kayahan Z, Kazazo_glu E. Management of a fractured implant abutment screw: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2014; 23: 402-5.
[89]   | Gupta V, Prithviraj DR, Muley N. A new restorative technique for the perishing implant due to abutment screw fracture. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40: 755-7.
[90]   | Harshakumar K, Bhatia S, Ravichandran R, Joy PT. Salvaging an implant with abutment screw fracture by a custom titanium post and core supported prosthesis-a novel technique. Int J Sci Study 2014; 2: 36-9.
[91]   | Mardinger O, Oubaid S, Manor Y, Nissan J, Chaushu G. Factors affecting the decision to replace failed implants: a retrospective study. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 2262-6.