DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Mechanical analysis of conventional and small diameter conical implant abutments

  • Received : 2012.06.05
  • Accepted : 2012.08.08
  • Published : 2012.08.31

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of the present study was to evaluate if a smaller morse taper abutment has a negative effect on the fracture resistance of implant-abutment connections under oblique compressive loads compared to a conventional abutment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty morse taper conventional abutments (4.8 mm diameter) and smaller abutments (3.8 mm diameter) were tightened (20 Ncm) to their respective implants ($3.5{\times}11$ mm) and after a 10 minute interval, implant/abutment assemblies were subjected to static compressive test, performed in a universal test machine with 1 mm/min displacement, at $45^{\circ}$ inclination. The maximum deformation force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed by student t test. RESULTS. Maximum deformation force of 4.8 mm and 3.8 mm abutments was approximately 95.33 kgf and 95.25 kgf, respectively, but no fractures were noted after mechanical test. Statistical analysis demonstrated that the evaluated abutments were statistically similar (P=.230). CONCLUSION. Abutment measuring 3.8 mm in diameter (reduced) presented mechanical properties similar to 4.8 mm (conventional) abutments, enabling its clinical use as indicated.

Keywords

References

  1. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1276-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01581.x
  2. Bozkaya D, Muftu S. Mechanics of the taper integrated screwedin (TIS) abutments used in dental implants. J Biomech 2005;38:87-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.03.006
  3. Coppede AR, Bersani E, de Mattos Mda G, Rodrigues RC, Sartori IA, Ribeiro RF. Fracture resistance of the implant-abutment connection in implants with internal hex and internal conical connections under oblique compressive loading: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:283-6.
  4. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of a 1-piece and 2-piece conical abutment joint in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:458-64. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011005458.x
  5. Reddy MS, O'Neal SJ, Haigh S, Aponte-Wesson R, Geurs NC. Initial clinical efficacy of 3-mm implants immediately placed into function in conditions of limited spacing. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:281-8.
  6. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:604-10. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.129384
  7. Weigl P. New prosthetic restorative features of Ankylos implant system. J Oral Implantol 2004;30:178-88. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2004)30<178:NPRFOT>2.0.CO;2
  8. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors - a comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:542-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130515.x
  9. Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 4thed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998. p. 44.

Cited by

  1. Compressive Resistance of Abutments with Different Diameters and Transmucosal Heights in Morse-Taper Implants vol.26, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201300221
  2. Análise da resistência à fratura entre pilares retos e angulados do sistema cone Morse vol.44, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.1063
  3. Abutments with reduced diameter for both cement and screw retentions: analysis of failure modes and misfit of abutment-crown-connections after cyclic loading vol.28, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12816
  4. Analysis of resistance to fatigue between straight solid and anatomic abutments of Morse taper system vol.45, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.08216
  5. Compressive Resistances and Failure Modes of Abutments With Different Transgingival Heights and Types on Internal Conical Connected Implants vol.26, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000658
  6. Influence of Manufacturing Methods of Implant-Supported Crowns on External and Internal Marginal Fit: A Micro-CT Analysis vol.2018, pp.2314-6141, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5049605
  7. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Zirconia and Titanium Abutments with Different Diameters vol.16, pp.8, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1730
  8. Analysis of the Pullout Testing of Straight and Angled Abutments in Narrow Diameter Implants vol.1012, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.1012.461
  9. Biomechanical evaluation of anterior implants associated with titanium and zirconia abutments and monotype zirconia implants vol.65, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpor_2019_527