Load-Application Devices: A Comparative Strain Gauge Analysis

Nishioka, Renato Sussumu; Vasconcellos, Luis Gustavo Oliveira de; Jóias, Renata Pilli; Rode, Sigmar de Mello

doi:10.1590/0103-6440201300321

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Strain gauge analysis is a technique for measuring microstrains, which involves the use of electrical resistance or strain gauges. [ 11 ] Strain gauges are based on the principle that certain materials undergo changes in their electrical resistivity when subjected to a force. Materials have different resistivities, which can be measured accurately at the site where the strain gauge is attached, using a Wheatstone's bridge circuit.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rani

Shetty

Reddy

2017

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rani

Shetty

Reddy

2017

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an attempt to simulate the alveolar bone, polyurethane blocks were used in this study similar to numerous previous studies (Abreu et al, ; Cho et al, ; De Vasconcellos et al, ; Karl et al, ; Nishioka et al, ; Watanabe et al, ). Even though the use of this material is common practice in strain analysis in implantology, polyurethane is assumed to be linearly elastic and isotropic, meaning that the material has the same mechanical properties in all direction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Principally, the cervical region of the implant is the site where the highest stresses occur (Karl & Holst, ; Watanabe et al, ). This phenomenon is due to the fact that when two materials are in contact with each other and one of them is loaded, the stresses will be higher at the first point of contact in any material (Nishioka et al, ). Therefore, the cervical region of the implant is the site where the greatest microdeformations occur, regardless of the type of bone, the design of the implant, the configuration of the prosthesis, and the load (Karl & Holst, , Watanabe et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Complex strain fields around fixtures, implant components, or suprastructures could be typically measured using strain gauge analysis (Abduo, Bennani, Lyons, Waddell, & Swain, ; Abreu et al, ; Asvanund, ; Castro, Zancope, Verissimo, Soares, & Neves, ; Cehreli & Iplikcioglu, ; Cho et al, ; De Vasconcellos et al, ; De Vasconcellos, Nishioka, de Vasconcellos, Balducci, & Kojima, ; Heckmann et al, ; Hegde et al, ; Isidor, ; Karl, Rosch, Graef, Talyor, Heckmann, ; Karl, Graef, & Wichmann, ; Karl, Graef, Wichmann, & Krafft, ; Karl & Holst, ; Karl & Taylor, ; Karl, Wichmann, Heckmann, & Krafft, ; Nishioka, de Vasconcellos, & de Melo Nishioka, ; Nishioka, de Vasconcellos, Joias, & Rode Sde, ). With this method, an electrical resistance in the strain gauge enables the measurement of deformation with high sensitivity (μm/m) (Asvanund, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A strain gauge analysis comparing 4‐unit veneered zirconium dioxide implant‐borne fixed dental prosthesis on engaging and non‐engaging abutments before and after torque application

Epprecht

Zeltner

Benić

et al. 2018

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study quantified the strain development after inserting implant‐borne fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) to various implant–abutment joints. Two bone‐level implants (∅ = 4.1 mm, RC, SLA 10 mm, Ti, Straumann) were inserted in polyurethane models (N = 3) in the area of tooth nos 44 and 47. Four‐unit veneered zirconium dioxide FDPs (n = 2) were fabricated, one of which was fixed on engaging (E; RC Variobase, ∅ = 4.5 mm, H = 3.5 mm) and the other on non‐engaging (NE) abutments (RC Variobase, ∅ = 4.5 mm, H = 5.5 mm). One strain gauge was bonded to the occlusal surface of pontic no. 46 on the FDP and the other two on the polyurethane model. Before (baseline) and after torque (35 Ncm), strain values were recorded three times. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). Mean strain values presented significant increase after torque for both E and NE implant–abutment connection type (baseline: E = 4.33 ± 4.38; NE = 4.85 ± 4.85; torque: E = 196.56 ± 188.02; NE = 275.63 ± 407.7; p < .05). Mean strain values based on implant level presented significant increase after torque for both E and NE implant–abutment connection (baseline: E = 4.94 ± 5.29; NE = 5.78 ± 5.69; torque: E = 253.78 ± 178.14; NE = 347.72 ± 493.06; p < .05). The position of the strain gauge on implants (p = .895), FDP (p = .275), and abutment connection type (p = .873) did not significantly affect the strain values. Strain levels for zirconium dioxide implant‐borne FDPs were not affected by the implant–abutment connection type.

show abstract

“…The strain meter was connected to a computer screen. A universal testing device (Lloyd instruments LR 5K, UK) was used to apply static load on the first premolar crown (25). A single point of a 100 N vertical static load was applied at a constant rate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Strain Developed Around Short Dental Implants Using Two Different Restorative Materials (In Vitrostudy)

Ibrahim

El-Sharkawy

Nassif

et al. 2020

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: The use of short implants has been introduced as an alternative treatment for posterior regions, however, it leads to serious prosthetic complications. Using CAD/CAM, materials like zirconia and Bio-HPP can be used to fabricate implant supported restorations. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the strains developed around short and standard implant length using two different crown materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polyurethane blocks (n=20) were used as alternative materials for human cancellous bone. Blocks were divided into two groups, group A received ten standard length implants 12 mm, and group B received ten short implants 7 mm. Each group was equally subdivided into two subgroups, according to crown material (BioHPP and zirconia). Universal testing machine was used to apply a load of 100 N axially and obliquely at 45° on the restorations. Microstrains were measured using strain meter. RESULTS: The difference in microstrain values between BioHPP and zirconia was statistically insignificant for both group A and group B. Comparing between group A and group B having the same restorative materials, it was found that, the difference was statistically significant for zirconia in axial loading only. A significant difference was observed between oblique and axial loads in standard implant length for both BioHPP and zirconia restorations, and for zirconia in short implants as well (p value=0.043), while the difference was insignificant for BioHPP in short implants. CONCLUSIONS: Short implants are comparable treatment modality to standard implant lengths for single tooth restoration. Oblique forces produce more stresses than vertical forces. According to the average of loads, there is no significant difference between BioHPP and zirconia for both short and standard implant length. However, it is advisable not to use zirconia restorations with short implants.

show abstract

Load-Application Devices: A Comparative Strain Gauge Analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

A strain gauge analysis comparing 4‐unit veneered zirconium dioxide implant‐borne fixed dental prosthesis on engaging and non‐engaging abutments before and after torque application

Evaluation of Strain Developed Around Short Dental Implants Using Two Different Restorative Materials (In Vitrostudy)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About