A Comparative Evaluation of the Strain Transmitted through Prostheses on Implants with Two Different Macro-Structures and Connection during Insertion and Loading Phase: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the strain levels in the peri-implant bone as generated by the blade-like implant (BLI) and the screw-type implant (STI) with two different internal connections (hexagonal and conical) and with a 1:1 and 2:1 crown/implant (C/I) ratio. Methods: The implants (BLI and STI) were placed into sawbones according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Two strain gauges, horizontal and vertical to the implant axis, were placed around each implant on the bone surface 1 mm from the cervical part. Each implant was loaded by a material testing machine at a force of 100 N. Micro-strains (με) generated in the surrounding bone were measured by a strain gauge and recorded. Results: Recorded micro-strains were not significant in both the insertion and loading phases (p < 0.0625). The average recorded micro-strain values were lower in the horizontal dimension of STI with hexagonal connection when the C/I ratio was 2:1 compared with BLI, 210 με and 443 με, respectively. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, implant design, implant-abutment connection and C/I ratio did not influence strain values in bone and there is no statistically significant effect of these parameters on bone.

Assessing the Efficacy of Whole-Body Titanium Dental Implant Surface Modifications in Inducing Adhesion, Proliferation, and Osteogenesis in Human Adipose Tissue Stem Cells

“…The stress caused by the mastication loads on a dental implant creates dynamic strains on the surrounding tissues, thus affecting the rehabilitation process [ 6 , 14 , 31 ]. In view of this, the surface particles and roughness guarantee a differential load transfer depending on their physical and chemical characteristics [ 6 , 14 , 31 ].…”

“…The stress caused by the mastication loads on a dental implant creates dynamic strains on the surrounding tissues, thus affecting the rehabilitation process [ 6 , 14 , 31 ]. In view of this, the surface particles and roughness guarantee a differential load transfer depending on their physical and chemical characteristics [ 6 , 14 , 31 ]. Therefore, the presence of a configuration with the highest roughness and reduced number of particles on the HA-blasted and bland acid etching implants may have a considerably better impact on the adhesion and load transfer during rehabilitation [ 19 , 23 ].…”

“…In fact, properties such as the shape, elasticity, roughness, chemical composition, electric charge, oxide type, and thickness have been demonstrated to play significant roles [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Theoretically, the surface geometry, charge and their chemical-physical modifications have to fulfill four main tasks: (1) prevent the unspecific adsorption of denatured proteins at the interface between the oral tissues and implants [ 12 ]; (2) attract differentiated or undifferentiated progenitor cells from the native tissue [ 13 ]; (3) induce native tissue or progenitor cell regeneration and differentiation [ 13 ]; and (4) guarantee an optimal load transfer to the bone [ 6 , 14 ]. Implants are mainly classified into four types based on their surface roughness, as determined by the arithmetical mean of the roughness area (Sa), defined as rough (Sa > 2.0 µm), moderately rough (Sa between 1.0–2.0 µm), minimally rough (Sa between 0.5–1.0 µm), or smooth (Sa < 0.5 µm) [ 15 , 16 ].…”

Considering the Value of 3D Cultures for Enhancing the Understanding of Adhesion, Proliferation, and Osteogenesis on Titanium Dental Implants

“…The microarchitecture of a biomaterial, including the number of particles and their size, distribution, and density, dramatically affects its interaction with tissues and cells and influences the mechanical properties of the scaffold itself [27]. In particular, it has been observed that the texture of the implant surface significantly affects cells both in vitro and in vivo, encouraging osseointegration [7][8][9]27] and likely extending its duration and long-term stability [8,11]. To establish whether or not particles were evenly distributed throughout the surface and would have an impact on cell adhesion and proliferation, we thus analyzed the surface mean particle area, distance, spacing, and number (Figure 2A-J, Table 1).…”

“…Indeed, the macro-and micro-topography of oral implants dramatically affect their stability and duration [7][8][9]. Specifically, the charge, geometry, and chemical composition of the surface, in particular, ensure optimal load transfer to the bone and the surrounding tissues, attract differentiated or undifferentiated progenitor cells from the native tissue, and induce regeneration and differentiation of host progenitor cells favoring, in fact, osseointegration and long-term stability of the implant [8,11].…”