Strains in the implant collars supporting a cantilevered cross‐arch bar prosthesis. An in vitro study

Abstract

PurposeTo examine the strains in the collar area of implants supporting a cantilevered cross‐arch bar prosthesis during vertical load application.Materials and methodsA milled cross‐arch metal framework supported by four implants in a trapezoidal design was supported in polymethylmethacrylate. T‐strain gage rosettes were attached to the crestal areas of the implants with two grids, one recording circumference strain of the crestal area of the implant and the second recording vertical strain, torquing strains of the implant. The framework was subject to vertical loading from an MTS 810 mechanical system. Loading sites were directly on anterior and posterior implants, and on a cantilever at 7.5, 15, 22.5, and 30 mm (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 of the anterior–posterior spread) distal from the posterior implant on the right side. The anterior–posterior (A–P) spread from anterior to posterior implants was 15 mm. Sites were loaded individually with 50 and 100 N. The data from the rosettes were transferred to a desktop computer and processed using StrainSmart 5000 software.ResultsMeans and standard deviations were calculated for the 10 trials at each of the loading sites. Two‐way ANOVAs were done separately for each dependent variable, the vertical grid, and the circumferential grid. The independent variables were the load magnitude and the load site. Tukey's test was used to compare groups post hoc. When directly loading the implants, loading the anterior implant resulted initially in compression followed by increasing tensile strain with 100 N loads. Loading the implant adjacent to cantilever (the posterior implant) resulted in greater strain at the collar than that observed with anterior implant with minimal bending strains. When loading the cantilever, anterior implant showed increasing bending strain at greater cantilever length, whereas the circumferential strains were greater for the supporting implant adjacent to the cantilever, particularly at 100 N loads, p ≤ 0.001.ConclusionsLimiting cantilever lengths to A–P spread ratios of 0.5 are preferred. Ratios greater than 1.0 should be avoided as flexing of the collar may occur. The dimensions of the implant, particularly wall thickness, adjacent to the cantilever should be carefully considered when planning the cantilevered implant‐supported prosthesis.