There is an increasing awareness for clinical monitoring of oral implants and need for better diagnostic, prognostic parameters. It is known well that PERIOTEST (Siemens, Germany) is a reliable, repeatable, simple and easy tools for checking the
mobility of implants. This study evaluated the correct testing methods of PERIOTEST in a controlld in vitro model. It was used as a control group that the PTV of 13 mm implant which was invested at 10 mm level of the entire length. PTVs were
recorded
for middle 1/3 of the 5 abutments : 3mm Healing abutment, Standard abutment, EsthetiCone, (Nobelpharma, Sweden) and Anatomic abutment (Steri-Oss. USA) and 3 impression copings connected to the top of abutment of fixture. Moreover, PTVs for 3
different
testing position and 10, 20, 32 Ncm and average tightening force by hand were recorded.
@ES The conclusion were as followings:
1. The Healing abutment, Standard abutment, EsthetiCone had statistically significant low PTV than the 30°Angled abutment and Anatomic abutment(p<0.05).
2. Square impression coping had a greatest PTVs among all or testing conditions. Moreover, the PTVs of all impression copings were higher value than abutments.
3. PTVs of the EthetiCone which was tightened to 20 Ncm, 32 Ncm level with Torque Controller were very similar to the control group. And the mobility of the implants by had tightening & 10 Ncm torque was greater than that by the 20 Ncm
torque(p<0.05).
4. The higher the testing position rose to the upper, the greater the PTV was obtained(p<0.05).
|