ABSTRACT
Aim: To evaluate and compare the strain development and distribution of maxillary implant-supported complete fixed dental prosthesis (ISCFDP) with computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing milled PEEK BIO-HPP superstructure when placed using All-on-4 and All-on-6 situation using a strain gauge and finite element analysis (FEA). Setting and Design: This is an in vitro study to evaluate and compare the stress minimization and strain developed at implant in premolar and in two clinically simulated situation of All-on-4 and All-on -6 ISCFDP. Materials and Methods: The study involved converting a human skull into. stl format to create 3D-printed stereolithography models with a modulus of elasticity closer to bone. Implants were placed in two models (M1 nad M2) in incisor, premolar, and pterygoid regions. A fixed dental prosthesis framework was fabricated on both models, and strain gauge sensors were attached. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive and analytical statistics were done. The normality of data was analyzed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Results: The results obtained were tabulated and it showed strain around the neck of ISCFDP under 100N configuration in strain gauge analysis. Stress was found more in the molar region when compared to the premolar region. This design showed that the largest stress around the neck of ISFDP under 100 N load was found more in the premolar region when compared to the molar region due to the reduction of stresses in the pterygoid region in FEA. Conclusion: In the present study, strain gauge analysis at 100 N for loading at the premolar and molar region shows the reduced strain on tilted implants in All-on-6 situation due to stress dissipation to the terminal pterygoid implant using strain gauge.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Humans , Finite Element Analysis , Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported , Dental Stress Analysis/methods , Stress, MechanicalABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical response of the peri-implant bone to standard, short-wide, and double mini implants replacing missing molar supporting either hybrid ceramic crowns (Lava Ultimate restorative) or full-metal crowns under two different loading conditions (axial and off-axial loading) using strain gauge analysis. METHODS: Three single-molar implant designs, (1) single, 3.8-mm (regular) diameter implant, (2) single, 5.8-mm (wide) diameter implant, and (3) two 2.5-mm diameter (double) implants connected through a single-molar crown, were embedded in epoxy resin by the aid of a surveyor to ensure their parallelism. Each implant supported full-metal crowns made of Ni-Cr alloy and hybrid ceramic with standardized dimensions. Epoxy resin casts were prepared to receive 4 strain gauges around each implant design, on the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal surfaces. Results were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Results showed that implant design has statistically significant effect on peri-implant microstrains, where the standard implant showed the highest mean microstrain values followed by double mini implants, while the short-wide implant showed the lowest mean microstrain values. Concerning the superstructure material, implants supporting Lava Ultimate crowns had statistically significant higher mean microstrain values than those supporting full-metal crowns. Concerning the load direction, off-axial loading caused uneven distribution of load with statistically significant higher microstrain values on the site of off-axial loading (distal surface) than the axial loading. CONCLUSIONS: Implant design, superstructure material, and load direction significantly affect peri-implant microstrains.
ABSTRACT
Over the past decades, the technological development in the medical field, coupled with the ongoing scientific research, has led to the development and improvement of dental prostheses supported by screw-retained metal frameworks. A key point in the manufacture of the framework is the achievement of a passive fit, intended as the capability of an implant-supported reconstruction to transmit minimum strain to implant components as well as to the surrounding bone, when subject to any load. The fitting of four different kinds of screw-retained metal frameworks was tested in this article. They differ both in materials and manufacturing process: two frameworks are made by casting, one framework is made by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing and one framework is made by electric resistance spot welding (WeldONE, DENTSPLY Implants Manufacturing GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). The passivity of the frameworks was evaluated on the entire system, composed of a resin master cast, the implant analogues embedded in the cast and the frameworks. Strains were recorded by means of an electrical strain gauge connected to a control unit for strain gauge measurements. The experimental tests were carried out in the laboratories of the Department of INdustrial engineering at the University of Bologna. The results of the test campaigns, which compared three samples for each technological process, showed that no significant differences exist between the four framework types. In particular, the frameworks made by the resistance welding approach led to a mechanical response that is well comparable to that of the other tested frameworks.
ABSTRACT
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).
