A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses

Abstract

Aims and Objective:To find out and compare peri implant strain developed in four different types of implant supported prostheses i.e., cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted, screw retained splinted, screw retained non splinted.Methodology:Four implant analogues were placed in a polyurethane mandibular model at the position of left and right first and second molar. Abutments were fixed to the implant at a torque of 25Ncm. Two such models were made. Four different prostheses were placed on abutment of each model i.e screw retained splinted, screw retained nonsplinted, cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted. Four strain gauges were attached on the model, two on the buccal and two on the lingual aspect of each implant. Static load of 400N was applied on the prosthesis using universal testing machine. Load application was done ten times for each model and peri implant strain was measured.Results:The mean peri implant strain (±SD) generated was found to be highest in non-splinted screw retained (1397.70 ± 44.47 microstrains and 1265.90 ± 42.76 microstrains) and least in splinted cement retained (630.70 ± 31.98 microstrains and 519.60 ± 32.48 microstrains) in both 1st and 2nd molars respectively.Conclusions:Splinted crowns produce less peri implant strain when compared to non splinted crowns. Cement retained prosthesis produce less peri implant strain when compared to screw retained prosthesis. Least strain was observed in cement retained splinted crowns.

Comparative evaluation of the influence of immediate versus delayed loading protocols of dental implants: A radiographic and clinical study

“…Occlusal overload is one such key biomechanical factor which influences implant success as it is the primary factor for generation of peri-implant strain and peri-implant bone loss. [2] Since many patients complained of the discomfort of edentulous spaces during the long healing period of the conventional implant protocol, the concept of immediate loading was proposed by some authors in the early 1990s. [345] Immediately loaded implants help in counteracting psychological problems as the patient do not have to remain edentulous after placement of implants as in the case of conventionally loaded implants.…”

Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches: A systematic review with meta-analysis

“…[71] Cement-retained prosthesis in both splinted and unsplinted conditions shows lesser strains around implant bone junctions which, in turn, shows lesser crestal resorption due to mechanical loads. [72] If cement-retained restorations are considered as treatment options, the clinician should weigh these pros and cons of the retention mode and other factors of retention as mentioned earlier because incidences of biomechanical risks and failures may lead to fabrication of new prosthesis which can increase the total cost. A progressive luting protocol can be followed which recommends use of cement in increasing order of their strengths until clinical success in retention is achieved.…”

Effect of joining the sectioned implant-supported prosthesis on the peri-implant strain generated in simulated mandibular model

“…Heat-cured resin was used for fabricating the models as its modulus of elasticity is closer to natural cancellous bone. [ 9 10 11 ] The models were designed with a slit in the center of the base to simulate the L-shape and the flexion of the mandible. Implant analogs of dimension 3.75 mm × 11.5 mm were placed in the following tooth positions; 36, 33, 43, 46.…”