{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010586319218241042, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024429967426710096, 'mean_word_length': 5.60752688172043, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Clinical and Histologic Assessments of Dental Implants Delivered with a Manual Torque Limiting Wrench Versus with an Electronically Controlled Torque Limiting Device.

The goal of this preclinical investigation was to evaluate the healing of tapered roughened surfaced dental implants that were delivered by either a manual torque limiting wrench or an electronically controlled torque limiting device. Three canines underwent bilateral extraction of third and fourth premolars and first molar. The extraction sites were allowed to heal for 2 months before two dental implants were placed bilaterally. All animals underwent a normal healing process. One animal was sacrificed at 1 month and the remaining two animals were sacrificed at 2 months to perform histologic evaluations including bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and soft tissue healing. The clinical stability and histologic osseointegration were similar when the results obtained with the manual torque limiting wrench were compared to those delivered by the electronically controlled torque limiting device. However, BIC and maintenance of the crestal bone level achieved appeared to be higher in the electronically controlled torque limiting device groups.