Biomechanical Behavior of the Dental Implant Macrodesign

Andrade, Camila Lima de; Carvalho, Marcelo Addas de; Bordin, Dimorvan; Silva, Wander José da; Cury, Altair Antoninha Del Bel; Sotto-Maior, Bruno Salles

doi:10.11607/jomi.4797

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, implant therapy risk factors are also found at the implant level, being the fixture macro-design capable to affect the osseointegration process, as reported by several authors [4,5,[30][31][32][33]. Fixture micro-and macro-designs can be adequately selected before treatment, and with the ideal concept design, implant success rate would be more predictable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t1 = 12 vs. t2 = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Masticatory overloads on an implant were pointed out as a possible cause of marginal bone resorption, due to the excessive stresses generated in the peri-implant tissue [4]. The transfer and the distribution of biomechanical loads are highly affected by the design of the constituting components and materials [5,6,7,8]. The implant–abutment connection (IAC) plays a critical role in the quality of the stress distribution, and, over the years, different designs were proposed in order to control the stress distribution [6,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative 3D Finite Element Computational Study of Three Connections

Farronato

Manfredini²,

Stevanello

et al. 2019

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Masticatory overload on dental implants is one of the causes of marginal bone resorption. The implant–abutment connection (IAC) design plays a critical role in the quality of the stress distribution, and, over the years, different designs were proposed. This study aimed to assess the mechanical behavior of three different types of IAC using a finite element model (FEM) analysis. Three types of two-piece implants were designed: two internal conical connection designs (models A and B) and one internal flat-to-flat connection design (model C). This three-dimensional analysis evaluated the response to static forces on the three models. The strain map, stress analysis, and safety factor were assessed by means of the FEM examination. The FEM analysis indicated that forces are transmitted on the abutment and implant’s neck in model B. In models A and C, forces were distributed along the internal screw, abutment areas, and implant’s neck. The stress distribution in model B showed a more homogeneous pattern, such that the peak forces were reduced. The conical shape of the head of the internal screw in model B seems to have a keystone role in transferring the forces at the surrounding structures. Further experiments should be carried out in order to confirm the present suppositions.

show abstract

“…Lima de Andrade's study showed that stress in the cortical bone around smooth neck implants was below 1.1 MPa, which was less than 1.6 MPa to maintain cortical bone from disuse atrophy. Therefore, according to Wolff's Law, insufficient mechanical stimulation of the smooth neck implant may cause loss of marginal bone 24 . A finite element analysis study revealed that the stress at the crestal bone adjacent to the microthreaded implants was 29% greater than that with smooth‐neck implants 25 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A finite element analysis study revealed that the stress at the crestal bone adjacent to the microthreaded implants was 29% greater than that with smooth‐neck implants 25 . The moderate mechanical stimulation provided by microthreads helped to avoid loss of marginal bone 24 . However, overloading (e.g., the maximum tensile principal stress exceeding 100 to 130 MPa or the maximum compressive principal stress exceeding 170 to 190 MPa) may result in marginal bone resorption by affecting the blood supply to the cortical bone or by exceeding the stress that would cause microdamage 26 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Bone Loss around Machined Smooth Neck Implants Compared to Rough Threaded Neck Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Zhang

Yue

2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this meta‐analysis was to assess the effect of rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss, compared to machined smooth neck implants. Materials and Methods Literature searches were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (up to March 04, 2020), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to March 04, 2020), and EMBASE (1980 to March 04, 2020), and reference lists of relevant manuscripts and relevant systematic reviews. Grey literature was sought using Grey Literature Net‐Work Service (www.opengrey.eu) and The Grey Literature Report (www.greylit.org). Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared the effects of machined smooth neck implants versus rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss were included. Two review authors selected studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from included studies independently. The meta‐analysis was carried out with Review Manager v5.3 software that compared marginal bone loss between rough threaded neck implants and machined smooth neck implants. Results This review included 8 manuscripts (2 randomized controlled trials and 6 controlled clinical trials) from 6 clinical studies. The marginal bone loss around the rough threaded neck implants was significantly less than that around machined smooth neck ones (MD: –0.43 mm, 95% CI: –0.65 to –0.22 mm; p < 0.0001). In the subgroup with different platform connections, less marginal bone loss was observed around the rough threaded neck implants with platform switching (MD: –0.67 mm, 95% CI: –0.87 to –0.48 mm; p < 0.00001) or with regular platform (MD: –0.28 mm, 95% CI: –0.39 to –0.18 mm; p < 0.00001). The statistical analysis of the subgroups with functional loading for 3 or 6 months (MD: –0.39 mm; 95% CI: –0.61 to –0.18 mm; p = 0.0003) and 1 year or longer (MD: –0.43 mm, 95% CI: –0.65 to –0.22 mm; p < 0.0001) suggested that the rough threaded neck implants helped to reduce marginal bone loss. Conclusions The results of this review suggested that rough threaded neck implants may be helpful in maintaining the amount of marginal bone around implants. Larger sample size, longer follow‐up periods and well‐conducted randomized controlled trials are necessary to further prove the validity of the findings.

show abstract

Biomechanical Behavior of the Dental Implant Macrodesign

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

A Comparative 3D Finite Element Computational Study of Three Connections

Marginal Bone Loss around Machined Smooth Neck Implants Compared to Rough Threaded Neck Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About