Strain gauges′s analysis on implant-retained prosthesis′ cast accuracy

Rodrigues, Mariana Agustinho; Luthi, Leonardo Flores; Takahashi, Jessica Mfk; Nobilo, Mauro Aa; Henriques, Guilherme Ep

doi:10.4103/0970-9290.147113

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty‐two articles combined at least two techniques to correlate implant‐framework misfit and mechanical/biological/clinical consequences, including strain/stress in the mechanical components and peri‐implant bone (21 articles) 72,82‐101 and bacterial counting (1 article) 102 . Within the 21 in vitro studies, 2D assessment using microscopy or SEM has been associated with PSA (5 studies), 85,88,89,91,92 SGA (7 studies), 82‐84,86,93,100,101 FEA (3 studies), 96,97,99 and reverse torque test (2 studies) 87,90 . Two studies combined 3D assessments (optical scanner) with SGA 94,95 and another 2 studies combined SGA and FEA 72,103 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three SGA studies found vertical misfit positively correlated with peri‐implant 83 and framework strains 82,100 . Two other studies showed no correlation between vertical misfit and strains within the framework or the implants 86,93 . A study tried to correlate the fatigue behavior of the prosthesis to the vertical misfit with the aid of FEA, but no direct relationship was found 96 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Pan

Tsoi

Lam

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The fit of implant‐supported prostheses is of prime importance for the long‐term success of implant therapy. Purpose This systematic review aimed to evaluate recent evidence on current techniques for assessing implant‐framework misfit, its associated strain/stress, and whether these misfits are related to mechanical, biological, and clinical consequences. Materials and methods An electronic search for publications from January 2010 to October 2020 was performed using the Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with combined keywords on implant‐framework misfit assessments and related clinical complications. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After full‐text analyses, data extraction was implemented on current techniques of misfit assessment and the relationship between the misfit and the induced strain/stress. Results A total of 3 in vivo and 92 in vitro studies were selected, including 47 studies on quantifying the degree of implant‐framework misfit with dimensional techniques, 24 studies measuring misfit‐induced strain/stress with modeling techniques, and 24 studies using both methods. The technical details, advantages, and limitations of each technique were illustrated. The correlation between the implant‐framework misfit and the induced strain/stress has been revealed in vitro, while that with the biological complications and implant/prostheses failure was weak in clinical studies. Conclusions Dimensional and modeling techniques are available to measure the implant‐framework misfit. The passivity of implant‐supported fixed prostheses appeared related to the induced strain/stress, but not the clinical complications. Further studies combining three‐dimensional (3D) assessments using dimensional and modeling techniques was needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Pan

Tsoi

Lam

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the other articles examined in this study suggest that the magnitude of the marginal misfit is not a reliable indicator in the prognosis of the stresses generation, once the stress distribution is more related to other factors such as screw tightening. [ 29 33 36 ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average of 100 μm was only exceeded in three studies: Barros et al . :[ 5 ] 108 μm; Rodrigues et al ., 2014:[ 36 ] 110 μm; and Tramontino et al . :[ 29 ] 118 μm.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: An integrative review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to perform an integrative review of the literature on the clinically usual prosthesis-abutment misfit over implant-supported structures manufactured by conventional casting technique. The present integrative review used the PRISMA methodology. A bibliographical search was conducted on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters Scientific), Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME), and Virtual Health Library (BVS). A total of 11 relevant studies were selected for qualitative analysis. The prosthetic-abutment vertical misfit considered clinically usual ranged from 50 to 160 μm. The vertical misfit depends on several steps during technical manufacturing techniques, which includes the materials and technical procedures. Lower values in misfit are recorded when precious metal or titanium alloys are utilized. Although a vertical misfit mean value of 100 μm has been considered clinically usual, most of the previous studies included in this revision showed lower mean values.

show abstract

“…The strain gauge assesses strains induced into a loaded structure by converting the change in resistance of an electric wire into strain measurement. (28 ) The wire used for the strain gauges was insulated by a packing material as a protection from humidity, which was reported to be essential for obtaining reliable recordings (29,30) The first molar was chosen for loading in the posterior region because maximum occlusal forces are often exerted in this area where there is maximum contraction of all elevator muscles. (31) Loading was done with 100 N as a moderate average level of biting force with implant retained overdenture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Locater and Magnetic Attachment Systems for Single Implant Retained Mandibular Overdenture (Strain Gauge Analysis)

Abdallah

Al-Asad

2017

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: the aim of this study was to compare stresses induced in locater and magnetic dome type attachments for single implant retained mandibular overdenture by using strain gauge analysis. Material and methods: One clear acrylic model was constructed representing completely edentulous lower ridge. A single implant was placed in the midline region of this model and two identical experimental overdentures were constructed. The first overdenture was fitted to single implant through a locater attachment while the second was fitted to implant through a Magnet Dome attachment. Four strain gauges were installed in labial and lingual surfaces and the right &left sides of single midline implant. A special loading device (universal testing machine) was used to apply standardized static vertical load with a magnitude of 100 N at the right first molar tooth on the occlusal surface of each experimental overdenture. Results: Comparing the two attachments that were studied, the differences were statistically significant, independent T test showed significant difference between Locater and Magnetic attachment groups. Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, it could be concluded that: magnetic attachment induce less stresses than locater attachment in case of single implant retained mandibular overdenture.

show abstract

Strain gauges′s analysis on implant-retained prosthesis′ cast accuracy

Abstract: The splinting technique was considered to be as efficient as the conventional technique. The strain gauge methodology was accurate for strain measurements and cast distortion evaluation. There was no correlation between strain and marginal misfit.

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: An integrative review

Comparison Between Locater and Magnetic Attachment Systems for Single Implant Retained Mandibular Overdenture (Strain Gauge Analysis)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About