Impact of type and position of abutment connection on microstrain distribution: an in vitro study
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. Materials and methods. 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. Results. Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). Conclusion. The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.
Abstract
Purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. Materials and methods. 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. Results. Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). Conclusion. The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.
참고문헌 (32)
- Linkevicius T, "Zero bone loss concepts", pp.181~193 (2019), Quintessence Publishing Company
- Wittneben JG, "Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis", Periodontol 2000, 73, pp.141~151 (2017)
- Ma S, "Screw-versus cement-retained implant prostheses : a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications", Int J Prosthodont, 28, pp.127~145 (2015)
- Quaresma SE, "A finite element analysis of two different dental implants : stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone", J Oral Implantol, 34, pp.1~6 (2008)
- Jafarian M, "Finite element analysis of stress distribution around a dental implant with different amounts of bone loss : an in vitro study", Dent Med Probl, 56, pp.27~32 (2019)
- Savignano R, "Computational biomechanical analysis of engaging and nonengaging abutments for implant screw-retained fixed dental prostheses", J Prosthodont, 30, pp.604~609 (2021)
- Schnutenhaus S, "Factors influencing the accuracy of freehand implant placement : a prospective clinical study", Dent J(Basel), 9, pp.54~ (2021)
- Suedam V, "Effect of cantilever length and alloy framework on the stress distribution in peri-implant area of cantilevered implant-supported fixed partial dentures", J Appl Oral Sci, 24, pp.114~120 (2016)
- Heo YK, "A newly designed screw-and cement-retained prosthesis and its abutments", Int J Prosthodont, 28, pp.612~614 (2015)
- Dogus SM, "Effect of engaging abutment position in implant-borne, screw-retained three-unit fixed cantilevered prostheses", J Prosthodont, 20, pp.348~354 (2011)
- Silveira MPM, "Influence of the dental implant number and load direction on stress distribution in a 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis", Dent Med Probl, 58, pp.69~74 (2021)
- Sallam H, "Microstrains around standard and mini implants supporting different bridge designs", J Oral Implantol, 38, pp.221~229 (2012)
- Dos Santos Marsico V, "Three-dimensional finite element analysis of occlusal splint and implant connection on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and peri-implantal bone", Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 80, pp.141~148 (2017)
- Rungsiyakull P, "Effect of the location of dental mini-implants on strain distribution under mandibular Kennedy Class I implant-retained removable partial dentures", Int J Dent, 2021, pp.6688521~ (2021)
- Kim HY, "Statistical notes for clinical researchers : assessing normal distribution(2)using skewness and kurtosis", Restor Dent Endod, 38, pp.52~54 (2013)
- Schwarz MS, "Mechanical complications of dental implants", Clin Oral Implants Res, 11, pp.156~158 (2000)
- Liaw K, "Dental Implant Complications", Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 36, pp.427~433 (2015)
- Lee H, "Biomechanical stability of internal bone-level implant : Dependency on hex or non-hex structure", Struct Eng Mech, 74, pp.567~576 (2020)
- Amini AR, "Bone tissue engineering : recent advances and challenges", Crit Rev Biomed Eng, 40, pp.363~408 (2012)
- Rutkunas V, "Misfit simulation on implant prostheses with different combinations of engaging and nonengaging titanium bases. Part 1 : Stereomicroscopic assessment of the active and passive fit", J Prosthet Dent, 129, pp.589~596 (2023)
- Janda M, "Influence of misfit on the occurrence of porcelain veneer fractures in implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Part 2 : a three-dimensional finite element analysis", Int J Prosthodont, 34, pp.458~462 (2021)
- Toia M, "Effect of misfit at implant-level framework and supporting bone on internal connection implants : mechanical and finite element analysis", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 34, pp.320~328 (2019)
- Cavallaro J Jr, "Angled implant abutments : a practical application of available knowledge", J Am Dent Assoc, 142, pp.150~158 (2011)
- Eazhil R, "Impact of implant diameter and length on stress distribution in osseointegrated implants : A 3D FEA study", J Int Soc Prev Community Dent, 6, pp.590~596 (2016)
- Matsushita Y, "Two-dimensional FEM analysis of hydroxyapatite implants : diameter effects on stress distribution", J Oral Implantol, 16, pp.6~11 (1990)
- Flanagan D, "Fixed partial dentures and crowns supported by very small diameter dental implants in compromised sites", Implant Dent, 17, pp.182~191 (2008)
- Lee H, "Effects of implant diameter, implant-abutment connection type, and bone density on the biomechanical stability of implant components and bone : A finite element analysis study", J Prosthet Dent, 128, pp.716~728 (2022)
- Rubo JH, "Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 12, pp.105~113 (2010)
- Oyar P, "The effect of the design of a mandibular implant-supported zirconia prosthesis on stress distribution", J Prosthet Dent, 125, pp.502~ (2021)
- Alencar SM, "FEA of peri-implant stresses in fixed partial denture prostheses with cantilevers", J Prosthodont, 26, pp.150~155 (2017)
- de Souza Batista VE, "Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla", Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 20, pp.663~670 (2017)
- Frost HM, "A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff’s Law for clinicians", Angle Orthod, 74, pp.3~15 (2004)