Evaluation of Strain at the Terminal Abutment Site of a Fixed Mandibular Implant Prosthesis During Cantilever Loading

Rodriguez, Arthur M.; Aquilino, Steven A.; Lund, Peter S.; Ryther, Jeffrey S.; Southard, Thomas E.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-849x.1993.tb00389.x

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Appropriately sized mesial or distal cantilever is not a significant medium‐to‐long‐term prognosis worsening factor; the cantilever prosthesis prognosis, although poorer than the prognosis of implant‐supported prosthesis without cantilevers, can be also accepted if manufacturer instructions are observed (Cibirca & Razzoog 1992; Jemt et al 1994; Jemt & Lie 1995; Takayama 1996; Sadowsky et al 1997; Hellden & Derand 1998; Duyck et al 2000; McAlarney & Stavropoulos 2000). Cantilever produces a negative effect on implant‐supported prosthesis or on supporting implants; it mostly appears as MBL for cantilever nearest implant, and especially along the proximal side of that implant (Rangert et al 1989; Rodriguez et al 1993; Rangert et al 1995; Sertgoz & Gunvener 1996; Rangert et al 1997; Stegaroiu et al 1998). Cantilever length is not a worsening factor for prosthesis and implant‐support prognosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant‐supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven‐year prospective study

Romeo

Lops

Margutti

et al. 2003

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the following study was to evaluate the medium- to long-term prognosis of implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses, and to establish to what degree this is influenced by factors such as length, type of cantilever (mesial or distal), and opposite dentition versus cantilever prostheses. This study was performed on a sample of 38 partially edentulous patients treated between January 1994 and March 2001 with 49 partial cantilever fixed prostheses supported by 100 implants. Marginal bone resorption (MBL) has been studied and used as a reference parameter to define therapeutic success. The MBL measurement was made possible by transposing X-ray images of patients selected on a PC and then using a software program. Statistical analysis was carried out for possible correlation between peri-implant bone resorption and the parameters considered in this study: length and type (mesial or distal) of cantilever and opposite dentition to cantilever prostheses. Seven years after loading cantilever prostheses, the overall cumulative implant survival rate (OCSR) was 97%, and the prostheses success rate is 98%. Mesial cantilever prostheses registered a lower success rate (97.1%) than distal cantilever prostheses (100%). Furthermore, a better prognosis was not observed when the opposite dentition of the prostheses comprised natural teeth, or fixed prostheses on natural teeth, when compared with the cases in which opposite teeth were implant-supported fixed prostheses. The authors concluded that medium-term prognosis of implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses and traditional implant-supported fixed prostheses was comparable. However, a thorough pre-treatment analysis of risk factors regarding implant-supported prosthesis survival is important.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant‐supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven‐year prospective study

Romeo

Lops

Margutti

et al. 2003

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[38][39][40][41][42] Also, strain gauge analysis was used by several examiners to investigate the biomechanical loading situation of implants during biting actions, yet it was mentioned that it is capable of detecting strains in only a limited sector of the peri-implant area. [43][44][45] Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical response of the peri-implant bone to standard, short-wide, and mini implants supporting single crowns under 2 different loading conditions, using strain gauge and FEA. The rationale for the investigated parameters was based on the idea of predicting the best treatment option to achieve long-term success.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-Implant Biomechanical Responses to Standard, Short-Wide, and Mini Implants Supporting Single Crowns Under Axial and Off-Axial Loading (an In Vitro Study)

Kheiralla

Younis

2014

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the biomechanical responses of 3 single crowns supported by 3 different implants under axial and off-axial loading. A standard implant (3.75 mm diameter, 13 mm length), a mini implant (3 mm diameter, 13 mm length), and a short-wide implant (5.7 mm diameter, 8 mm length) were embedded in epoxy resin by the aid of a surveyor to ensure their parallelism. Each implant supported a full metal crown made of Ni-Cr alloy with standardized dimensions. Strain gauges and finite element analysis (FEA) were used to measure the strain induced under axial and off-axial functional loads of 300 N. Results showed that mini implants recorded the highest microstrains, under both axial and off-axial loading. All implants showed a considerable increase in strain values under off-axial loading. Standard and short-wide implants proved to be preferable in supporting crowns, as the standard implant showed the lowest strains under axial and off-axial loading using FEA simulation, while the short-wide implant showed the lowest strains under nonaxial loading using strain gauge analysis.

show abstract

“…Cantilevers have been studied extensively in the scientific literature, mostly pertaining to Branemark's original tissue‐integrated prostheses for the fully edentulous mandible 1 . Empirical suggestions have been made, 2 finite element analyses, 3 in vitro 4–8 and in vivo 9–12 investigations have been conducted, and review papers have been published 13–15 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Engaging Abutment Position in Implant-Borne, Screw-Retained Three-Unit Fixed Cantilevered Prostheses

Dogus¹,

Kurtz²,

Watanabe³

et al. 2011

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The position of the engaging component had significant effects on the results. Within the limitations of this investigation, it can be concluded that using an engaging abutment in a screw-retained fixed cantilevered FDP provides a mechanical advantage, and engaging the implant furthest from the cantilever when designing a screw-retained cantilever FDP increased resistance to fracture of the distal abutment screw.

show abstract

Evaluation of Strain at the Terminal Abutment Site of a Fixed Mandibular Implant Prosthesis During Cantilever Loading

Cited by 38 publications

References 4 publications

Implant‐supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven‐year prospective study

Implant‐supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven‐year prospective study

Peri-Implant Biomechanical Responses to Standard, Short-Wide, and Mini Implants Supporting Single Crowns Under Axial and Off-Axial Loading (an In Vitro Study)

Effect of Engaging Abutment Position in Implant-Borne, Screw-Retained Three-Unit Fixed Cantilevered Prostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About