대한치과보철학회지 (The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics)

  • 제58권4호
  • /
  • Pages.321-327
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 0301-2875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-3789(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

3본 나사 유지형 임플란트 보철물의 고정 방식에 따른 임플란트 고정체 치경부에 발생하는 변형율 비교분석

Analysis of implant strain value exerted using different screw tightening protocols in screw-retained 3-unit prostheses

  • 김상범 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이두형 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이청희 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Kim, Sang-Beom (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Du-Hyeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Cheong-Hee (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 투고 : 2020.08.19
  • 심사 : 2020.10.06
  • 발행 : 2020.10.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 본 연구의 목적은 3본 나사 유지형 임플란트 보철물의 나사 고정 방식에 따른 치경부에 발생하는 변형율을 측정하고 비교하기 위함이다. 재료 및 방법: 2가지 종류의 임플란트(외부연결방식, 내부연결방식)를 각각 2개씩 4개 임플란트 고정체 경부에 스트레인 게이지를 부착한 후, 각 종류의 아크릴릭 레진 모형 2개를 제작하였다. CAD-CAM을 이용하여 hex 및 nonhex 지대주를 제작하였고,(EH, ENH, IH& INH 군) 나사-시멘트 유지보철 개념으로 보철물을 비귀금속으로 제작하였다. 각 지대주를 10 Ncm 토크로 고정한 후, 보철물을 합착하였다. 나사를 3가지의 다른 방법으로 30 Ncm까지 고정한 다음, 5분 후 변형율을 측정한 후 평균비교 및 군간 상호작용을 평가하였다 (α = .05). 결과: 외부연결방식 군은 내부연결방식 군에 비하여 유의하게 낮은 변형율을 나타냈으며, EH군이 ENH군보다 유의하게 낮은 변형율을 나타내었으나 (P < .05), 나사 고정 방법에 따른 차이는 없었다 (P > .05). IH군이 INH군에 비하여 유의하게 높은 변형율을 나타내었으며 IH군에서만 나사 고정 방법에 따라서도 차이가 있었다 (P < .05). 결론: 나사 유지형 임플란트 보철물에서는 외부연결방식인 경우에는 큰 영향이 없으나, 내부연결방식에서는 보다 큰 변형율이 발생하고 나사 고정 방법도 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the strain value exerted on the cervical area using different screw tightening protocols in implant-supported, screw-retained 3-unit prostheses. Materials and methods: Strain gauges were attached to four implants: two external and two internal. Thereafter, two study model were designed each type using acrylic resin. CAD-CAM was used to design hex and nonhex abutments for each group (EH, ENH, IH, and INH group) and Screw-cement-retained prostheses were also designed using a nonprecious base metal. Abutment was fixed with 10 Ncm torque, and the prosthesis was cemented. Screws were fixed with 30 Ncm torque using different three protocols. After 5 min, the strain gauge level was measured, and group analysis was performed (α=.05). Results: External group showed significantly lower strain values than internal group and the EH group showed significantly lower strain values than the ENH group (P<.05). There was no difference in strain value based on the types of screw tightening protocols in same group (P>.05). The IH group exhibited significantly higher strain values than the INH group and the IH group showed a significant difference in strain values based on the types of screw tightening protocols used (P<.05). Conclusion: There was no significant effect on the external type in the implant-supported, screw-retained prostheses. However, strain values were high in the internal type, and the types of screw tightening protocol significantly affected these implants.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Li J, Jansen JA, Walboomers XF, van den Beucken JJ. Mechanical aspects of dental implants and osseointegration: A narrative review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;103:103574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103574
  2. Nishioka RS, Nishioka LN, Abreu CW, de Vasconcellos LG, Balducci I. Machined and plastic copings in three-element prostheses with different types of implant-abutment joints: a strain gauge comparative analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:225-30. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572010000300005
  3. de Vasconcellos LG, Kojima AN, Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LM, Balducci I. Axial loads on implant-supported partial fixed prostheses for external and internal hex connections and machined and plastic copings: strain gauge analysis. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:149-54. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00174
  4. Asvanund P. A strain gauge analysis comparing external and internal implant-abutment connections. Implant Dent 2014;23:206-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000063
  5. Albrektsson T, Dahlin C, Jemt T, Sennerby L, Turri A, Wennerberg A. Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:155-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12142
  6. Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LG, de Melo Nishioka LN. External hexagon and internal hexagon in straight and offset implant placement: strain gauge analysis. Implant Dent 2009;18:512-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bcc621
  7. Nissan J, Gross M, Shifman A, Assif D. Stress levels for wellfitting implant superstructures as a function of tightening force levels, tightening sequence, and different operators. J Prosth Dent 2001;86:20-3. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115182
  8. Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, Kirsch A. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:209-18.
  9. Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int 2012;43:119-25.
  10. Luk HW, Pow EH, McMillan AS, Hui CF. A double casting technique to minimize distortion when constructing fixed partial dentures on implants. J Prosth Dent 2004;91:93-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.013
  11. Karl M, Holst S. Strain development of screw-retained implant-supported fixed restorations: procera implant bridge versus conventionally cast restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:166-9.
  12. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis; CV Mosby; 2014. p. 747.
  13. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:75-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x
  14. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:466-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01027.x
  15. Karl M, Taylor TD. Bone adaptation induced by non-passively fitting implant superstructures: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:369-75. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4331
  16. Im SM, Kim DG, Park CJ, Cha MS, Choi LR. Biomechanical considerations for the screw of implant prosthesis: A literature review. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:61-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.61
  17. Huang Y, Wang J. Mechanism of and factors associated with the loosening of the implant abutment screw: A review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31:338-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12494
  18. Matsuzaki M, Ayukawa Y, Sakai N, Matsuzaki T, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. A comparison of the peri-implant bone stress generated by the preload with screw tightening between 'bonded' and 'contact' model. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2017;20:393-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2016.1236370
  19. Al-Otaibi HN, Akeel RF. The effects of two torque values on the screw preload of implant-supported prostheses with passive fit or misfit. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1058-63. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3419
  20. Wentaschek S, Tomalla S, Schmidtmann I, Lehmann KM. Preload, coefficient of friction, and thread friction in an implant-abutment-screw complex. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:542-4. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5286
  21. Rutkunas V, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020;22:237-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12885
  22. Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:67-73. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0067:TRBIPA>2.3.CO;2
  23. Zipprich H, Rathe F, Pinz S, Schlotmann L, Lauer HC, Ratka C. Effects of screw configuration on the preload force of implant-abutment screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:e25-32. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5837
  24. Lee JH. Axial displacement of internal conical connection abutments under static load. MS Thesis, Kyungpook National University, 2019.