Dataset for Assessment of the prosthetic retention of a frictional implant system with different mechanical testing methods

Different from screw implant systems, in which the fixation of the prosthetic abutment is verified during screwing using a torque ratchet, frictional implant systems do not present specific devices or methods to verify the fixation of the prosthetic component, which may cause component loosening when fixed incorrectly. This study aims to assess a new method to verify the stability of the prosthetic connection between frictional implants and abutments with a torsion test, directly comparing it with a tensile test. It also analyzes the influence on the mechanical response, for both tests, to the number of activations applied to the prosthetic components. An implant system with a frictional connection was selected for the study. The prosthetic abutments were attached to the implants and connected with an activation device of the system. The connection was performed at four different activation levels: 1, 3, 6, and 10 impacts caused by the device, forming four different assessment groups. For each group, half the samples were referred to tensile tests, and the other half was subjected to torsion assessments. The data obtained (avaliable on .xlsx and .bio files - BioEstat 5.3 software file) were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA), followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test (=0.05), to indicate which groups presented statistically significant differences. Lastly, Pearson's test was applied to assess whether there was a correlation between the values obtained in both mechanical tests. Both mechanical assessment methods showed that increasing the number of prosthetic activations increases the retention between implants and abutments. However, the difference of increased retention tends to decrease with the number of activations. The tensile test results show that the difference of maximum force values obtained is significantly different only when highly differing from the number of impacts. The torsion assessment presented statistically significant differences also for groups that highly differed from the number of impacts, and there was a difference between 1 and 3 activations. When correlated, the methods statistically present a moderate and positive relationship, meaning they show a growing tendency of torque and force values as the number of activations on the component increases. The study showed that the higher the number of activations performed on frictional abutments, the higher the retention of the implant connection. However, this retention tends to stabilize as the number of impacts increases. Both mechanical tests may assess the retention of frictional components, but the torsion test showed higher sensitivity. The torsion method is practical, simple, and closer to the dynamics of multidirectional movements of the forces applied to teeth.