Biomechanical behavior of extra-narrow implants after fatigue and pull-out tests

Reis, Taís Alves dos; Zancopé, Karla; Karam, Frederick Khalil; Neves, Flávio Domingues das

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.005

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Four dynamic load values were set for each group according to the initial value (Table 1). The fatigue value was defined as the maximum load when the number of loading cycles reached 5 × 10 6 , simulating 5 years of clinical service 24 . The fatigue lifetime was defined as the number of cycles when the implant–abutment unit was loaded to fracture.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated versus customized dental implant abutments: A comparative study

Zou

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Dental implant abutments play an important role in the health and aesthetics of soft and hard tissues around implants. Purpose To compare mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated and customized dental implant abutments and provide references to evaluate the relationship between abutment choice and clinical indications. Methods Titanium abutments were randomly divided into prefabricated and customized abutments. Static and dynamic loads were applied according to ISO14801:2016. Mechanical properties, including fracture strength, fatigue strength, rotational torque value, and torque loss rate, were measured. The biological properties of the implant abutments were assessed using an internal marginal fit. The samples were sliced, and the internal marginal fit was examined using a scanning electron microscope before and after cyclic loading. The length of the tight contact was calculated at the level of the conical connection, lower internal connection, and screw threads. Microleakage was evaluated by immersing the samples in 1% methylene blue and measuring the absorbance. Results The fracture strengths of the prefabricated abutments were greater than those of the customized abutments before and after cyclic loading. The average fatigue strengths of the prefabricated and customized abutments were 350 and 300 N, respectively. The removal torque loss of the customized abutments was significantly greater than that of the prefabricated abutments. Significant differences were found in conical connection before loading, while the screw threads showed substantial differences between the two groups after loading. Microleakage in the customized abutments was significantly higher than that in the prefabricated abutments before and after loading. Conclusions Prefabricated abutments showed superior mechanical and biological properties compared with customized abutments in vitro, suggesting a greater risk of mechanical and biological complications occurring with the use of customized abutments. This study provides a reference for the clinical selection of implant abutments.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated versus customized dental implant abutments: A comparative study

Zou

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When comparing the behavior of small-diameter single-body implants with two-piece implants of different diameters, our results reinforce the findings of other authors [3,44], who stated that despite the better behavior of regular-diameter implants, small-diameter implants are a viable and predictable option for implant-supported rehabilitation, provided that careful planning is carried out. Still, other authors [45][46][47] verified a decrease in the mechanical resistance of extra-reduced-diameter implants when compared with regular-diameter implants, and for this reason, their clinical indication would be restricted to areas with a low incidence of masticatory loads.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: A finite element study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress distribution on three implant models with narrow and extra-narrow diameters using the finite element method (FEA). Materials and methods Dental implants of extra-narrow diameter of 2.5 mm for a one-piece implant (group G1), a narrow diameter of 3.0 mm for a one-piece implant (group G2) and a narrow diameter of 3.5 mm for a two-piece implant with a Morse taper connection (group G3). A three-dimensional model was designed with cortical and cancellous bone, a crown and an implant/abutment set of each group. Axial and angled (30°) loads of 150 N was applied. The equivalent von Mises stress was used for the implants and peri-implant bone plus the Mohr-Coulomb analysis to confirm the data of the peri-implant bone. Results In the axial load, the maximum stress value of the cortical bone for the group G1 was 22.35% higher than that the group G2 and 321.23% than the group G3. Whereas in angled load, the groups G1 and G2 showing a similar value (# 3.5%) and a highest difference for the group G3 (391.8%). In the implant structure, the group G1 showed a value of 2188MPa, 93.6% higher than the limit. Conclusions The results of this study show that the extra-narrow one-piece implant should be used with great caution, especially in areas of non-axial loads, whereas the one- and two-piece narrow-diameter implants show adequate behavior in both directions of the applied load.

show abstract

“…Implants whose diameters varied from 2,9 mm up to 3,2 mm were classified as "ultra-narrow implants" 26 and to obtain an acceptable degree of mechanical performance for 2.9 mm narrow implants, two solutions were found by manufacturers 12 : a self-locking connection, avoiding the necessity of internal threads, and stronger raw material. As presented in Table 2, the tensile strength for Ti6Al4V is 9% higher than titanium grade IV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neodent launched in the market in 2013, a narrow implant with 2.9 mm diameter (Facility, Neodent, Brazil), which was developed for borderline cases (regions of maxillary lateral incisor and mandibular incisors). Its main attraction is that it has a pure self-locking Morse taper interface (6-degree prosthetic interface), using the titanium Ti6Al4V alloy, with no internal screw 12 , in order to preserve its strength to avoid the narrowing of the walls. This prosthetic interface is different when comparing to others, with internal screws and 11.5-degree prosthetic interface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of diameter on mechanical behavior of morse taper narrow implants

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implants could give back function, esthetics and quality of life to patients. The correct choice of the implant, especially in borderline cases, is essential for a satisfactory result. Aim: Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanical behavior of Morse taper implants with two different prosthetic interfaces. Methods: Twenty self-locking Morse taper implants, 2.9 mm in diameter (FAC), and 20 Morse taper implants, 3.5 mm in diameter (CM) were divided into two groups (n=10), and submitted to strength to failure test, optical microscopic evaluation of fracture, metallographic analysis of the alloy, finite element analysis (FEA) and strain gauge test. A Student’s t test (α = 0.05) was made for a statistical analysis. Results: For the strength to failure test, a statistically difference was observed (p <0.001) between FAC (225.0 ± 19.8 N) and CM (397.3 ± 12.5 N). The optical microscopic evaluation demonstrated a fracture pattern that corroborated with FEA´s results. The metallographic analysis determined that the implants of the FAC group have titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy in their composition. In the strain gauge test, there was no statistical difference (p = 0.833) between CM (1064.8 ± 575.04 μS) and FAC (1002.2 ± 657.6 μS) groups. Conclusion: Based on the results obtained in this study, ultra-narrow implants (FAC) should ideally be restricted to areas with low masticatory effort.

show abstract

Biomechanical behavior of extra-narrow implants after fatigue and pull-out tests

Cited by 16 publications

References 13 publications

Mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated versus customized dental implant abutments: A comparative study

Mechanical properties and marginal fit of prefabricated versus customized dental implant abutments: A comparative study

Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: A finite element study

Influence of diameter on mechanical behavior of morse taper narrow implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About