ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study investigated the strain of implants using a chewing simulator with strain gauges in mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses under various dynamic loads. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three implant-supported 5-unit fixed prostheses were fabricated with three different occlusion types (Group I: Canine protected occlusion, Group II: Unilaterally balanced occlusion, Group III: Bilaterally balanced occlusion). Two strain gauges were attached to each implant abutment. The programmed dynamic loads (0 - 300 N) were applied using a chewing simulator (MTS 858 Mini Bionix II systems, MTS systems corp., Minn, USA) and the strains were monitored. The statistical analyses were performed using the paired t-test and the ANOVA. RESULTS: The mean strain values (MSV) for the working sides were 151.83 microepsilon, 176.23 microepsilon, and 131.07 microepsilon for Group I, Group II, and Group III, respectively. There was a significant difference between Group II and Group III (P < .05). Also, the MSV for non-working side were 58.29 microepsilon, 72.64 microepsilon, and 98.93 microepsilon for Group I, Group II, and Group III, respectively. One was significantly different from the others with a 95% confidence interval (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The MSV for the working side of Groups I and II were significantly different from that for the non-working side (Group I: t = 7.58, Group II: t = 6.25). The MSV for the working side of Group II showed significantly larger than that of Group III (P < .01). Lastly, the MSV for the non-working side of Group III showed significantly larger than those of Group I or Group II (P < .01).
Subject(s)
Mastication , Prostheses and Implants , Sprains and StrainsABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Unreasonable distal cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis can mask functional problems of reconstruction temporarily, but it can cause serious strain and stress around its supported implant and surrounding alveolar bone. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate strain of implants supporting distal cantilevered fixed prosthesis with two different cantilevered length under distal cantilevered static load. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A partially edentulous mandibular test model was fabricated with auto-polymerizing resin (POLYUROCK; Metalor technologies, Stuttgart, Swiss) and artificial denture teeth (Endura; Shofu inc., Kyoto, Japan). Two implants-supported 5-unit screwretained cantilevered fixed prosthesis was made using standard methods with Type III gold alloy (Harmony C & B55; Ivoclar-vivadent, Liechtenstein, Germany) for superstructure and reinforced hard resin (Tescera; Ivoclar-vivadent, Liechtenstein, Germany) for occlusal material. Two strain gauges (KFG-1-120-C1-11L1M2R; KYOWA electronic instruments, Tokyo, Japan) were then attached to the mesial and the distal surface of each standard abutment with adhesive (M-bond 200; Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan). Total four strain gauges were attached to test model and connected to dynamic signal conditioning strain amplifier (CTA1000; Curiotech inc., Paju, Korea). The stepped 20-100 N in 25 N increments, cantilevered static load 8mm apart (Group I) or 16mm apart (Group II), were applied using digital push-pull gauge (Push-Pull Scale & Digital Force Gauge, Axis inc., Seoul, Korea). Each step was performed ten times and every strain signal was monitored and recorded. RESULTS: In case of Group I, the strain values were surveyed by 80.7 ~ 353.8 micrometer/m in Ch1, 7.5 ~ 47.9 micrometer/m in Ch2, 45.7 ~ 278.6 micrometer/m in Ch3 and -212.2 ~ -718.7 micrometer/m in Ch4 depending on increasing cantilevered static load. On the other hand, the strain values of Group II were surveyed by 149.9 ~ 612.8 micrometer/m in Ch1, 26.0 ~ 168.5 micrometer/m in Ch2, 114.3 ~ 632.3 micrometer/m in Ch3, and -323.2 ~ -894.7 micrometer/m in Ch4. CONCLUSION: A comparative statistical analysis using paired sample t-test about Group I Vs Group II under distal cantilevered load shows that there are statistical significant differences for all 4 channels (P<0.05).