The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of the connection design and titanium grades of the implant complex on resistance under static loading

  • Park, Su-Jung (Department of Biomaterials & Prosthodontics, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Lee, Suk-Won (Department of Biomaterials & Prosthodontics, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Leesungbok, Richard (Department of Biomaterials & Prosthodontics, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Ahn, Su-Jin (Department of Biomaterials & Prosthodontics, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2016.03.15
  • Accepted : 2016.08.08
  • Published : 2016.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the resistance to deformation under static overloading by measuring yield and fracture strength, and to analyze the failure characteristics of implant assemblies made of different titanium grades and connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Six groups of implant assemblies were fabricated according to ISO 14801 (n=10). These consisted of the combinations of 3 platform connections (external, internal, and morse tapered) and 2 materials (titanium grade 2 and titanium grade 4). Yield strength and fracture strength were evaluated with a computer-controlled Universal Testing Machine, and failed implant assemblies were classified and analyzed by optical microscopy. The data were analyzed using the One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student's t-test with the level of significance at P=.05. RESULTS. The group $IT4_S$ had the significantly highest values and group IT2 the lowest, for both yield strength and fracture strength. Groups $IT4_N$ and ET4 had similar yield and fracture strengths despite having different connection designs. Group MT2 and group IT2 had significant differences in yield and fracture strength although they were made by the same material as titanium grade 2. The implant system of the similar fixture-abutment interfaces and the same materials showed the similar characteristics of deformation. CONCLUSION. A longer internal connection and titanium grade 4 of the implant system is advantageous for static overloading condition. However, it is not only the connection design that affects the stability. The strength of the titanium grade as material is also important since it affects the implant stability. When using the implant system made of titanium grade 2, a larger diameter fixture should be selected in order to provide enough strength to withstand overloading.

Keywords

References

  1. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, Peters F, Simpson JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:144-53. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  2. Nelson K, Semper W, Hildebrand D, Ozyuvaci H. A retrospective analysis of sandblasted, acid-etched implants with reduced healing times with an observation period of up to 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:726-32.
  3. Sullivan D, Vincenzi G, Feldman S. Early loading of Osseotite implants 2 months after placement in the maxilla and mandible: a 5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:905-12.
  4. Zarb GA, Zarb FL. Tissue integrated dental prostheses. Quintessence Int 1985;16:39-42.
  5. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  6. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Gröndahl K. 3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brånemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:340-9.
  7. Scheller H, Urgell JP, Kultje C, Klineberg I, Goldberg PV, Stevenson-Moore P, Alonso JM, Schaller M, Corria RM, Engquist B, Toreskog S, Kastenbaum F, Smith CR. A 5-year multicenter study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:212-8.
  8. Jemt T, Pettersson P. A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment. J Dent 1993;21:203-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90127-C
  9. Strub JR, Gerds T. Fracture strength and failure mode of five different single-tooth implant-abutment combinations. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:167-71.
  10. Brunski JB. Biomaterials and biomechanics in dental implant design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:85-97.
  11. Tagger Green N, Machtei EE, Horwitz J, Peled M. Fracture of dental implants: literature review and report of a case. Implant Dent 2002;11:137-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200204000-00014
  12. Binon PP, McHugh MJ. The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:511-9.
  13. Truninger TC, Stawarczyk B, Leutert CR, Sailer TR, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. Bending moments of zirconia and titanium abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections after aging and chewing simulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:12-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02141.x
  14. Sailer I, Sailer T, Stawarczyk B, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH. In vitro study of the influence of the type of connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:850-8.
  15. Mitsias ME, Silva NR, Pines M, Stappert C, Thompson VP. Reliability and fatigue damage modes of zirconia and titanium abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:56-9.
  16. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Sadler JP, McKay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:270-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9
  17. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Nelson EW, Tietge JD. Torque required to loosen single-tooth implant abutment screws before and after simulated function. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:435-9.
  18. Standlee JP, Caputo AA. Accuracy of an electric torque-limiting device for implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:278-81.
  19. Flanagan D. Diet and implant complications. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42:305-10. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-15-00127
  20. Helkimo E, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M. Bite force and state of dentition. Acta Odontol Scand 1977;35:297-303. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357709064128
  21. Hagberg C. Assessment of bite force: a review. J Craniomandib Disord 1987;1:162-9.
  22. Dittmer MP, Dittmer S, Borchers L, Kohorst P, Stiesch M. Influence of the interface design on the yield force of the implant-abutment complex before and after cyclic mechanical loading. J Prosthodont Res 2012;56:19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2011.02.002
  23. Khraisat A. Stability of implant-abutment interface with a hexagon-mediated butt joint: failure mode and bending resistance. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7:221-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00067.x
  24. English CE. Externally hexed implants, abutments, and transfer devices: a comprehensive overview. Implant Dent 1992;1:273-82. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199200140-00009
  25. Semper W, Kraft S, Krüger T, Nelson K. Theoretical considerations: implant positional index design. J Dent Res 2009;88:725-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509341172
  26. Semper W, Kraft S, Krüger T, Nelson K. Theoretical optimum of implant positional index design. J Dent Res 2009;88:731-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509341243
  27. Mollersten L, Lockowandt P, Linden LA. Comparison of strength and failure mode of seven implant systems: an in vitro test. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:582-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70009-X
  28. McGlumphy EA, Robinson DM, Mendel DA. Implant superstructures: a comparison of ultimate failure force. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:35-9.
  29. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant- abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26.
  30. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implantabutment 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
  31. Levine RA, Clem D, Beagle J, Ganeles J, Johnson P, Solnit G, Keller GW. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the solidscrew ITI implant for posterior single-tooth replacements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:550-6.
  32. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.
  33. Semper-Hogg W, Kraft S, Stiller S, Mehrhof J, Nelson K. Analytical and experimental position stability of the abutment in different dental implant systems with a conical implant-abutment connection. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1017-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0786-1
  34. Freitas Júnior AC, Bonfante EA, Silva NR, Marotta L, Coelho PG. Effect of implant-abutment connection design on reliability of crowns: regular vs. horizontal mismatched platform. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1123-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02257.x
  35. Freitas-Júnior AC, Almeida EO, Bonfante EA, Silva NR, Coelho PG. Reliability and failure modes of internal conical dental implant connections. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:197-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02443.x
  36. Apicella D, Veltri M, Balleri P, Apicella A, Ferrari M. Influence of abutment material on the fracture strength and failure modes of abutment-fixture assemblies when loaded in a bio-faithful simulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:182-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01979.x

Cited by

  1. A New Model to Study Fatigue in Dental Implants Based on Probabilistic Finite Elements and Cumulative Damage Model vol.2017, pp.1754-2103, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3726361
  2. Complete mechanical characterization of an external hexagonal implant connection: in vitro study, 3D FEM, and probabilistic fatigue pp.1741-0444, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-018-1846-8
  3. Load-Bearing Capacity and Retention of Newly Developed Micro-Locking Implant Prosthetic System: An In Vitro Pilot Study vol.11, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11040564
  4. Deformation of the Internal Connection of Narrow Implants after Insertion in Dense Bone: An in Vitro Study vol.12, pp.11, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12111833
  5. Improvement in Fatigue Behavior of Dental Implant Fixtures by Changing Internal Connection Design: An In Vitro Pilot Study vol.12, pp.19, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193264