Browse > Article

INFLUENCE OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT INTERFACE DESIGN, IMPLANT DIAMETER AND PROSTHETIC TABLE WIDTH ON STRENGTH OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT INTERFACE : THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS  

Oh Se-Woong (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Yang Jae-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Lee Sun-Hyung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Han Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.41, no.4, 2003 , pp. 393-404 More about this Journal
Abstract
Statement of problem. Higher incidence of prosthetic complications such as screw loosening, screw fracture has been reported for posterior single tooth implant. So, there is ongoing research regarding stability of implant-abutment interface. One of those research is increasing the implant diameter and prosthetic table width to improve joint stability. In another part of this research, internal conical type implant-abutment interface was developed and reported joint strength is higher than traditional external hex interface. Purpose. The purpose of this study is to compare stress distribution in single molar implant between external hex butt joint implant and internal conical joint implant when increasing the implant diameter and prosthetic table width : 4mm diameter, 5mm diameter, 5mm diameter/6mm prosthetic table width. Material and method. Non-linear finite element models were created and the 3-dimensional finite element analysis was performed to see the distribution of stress when 300N static loading was applied to model at $0^{\circ},\;15^{\circ},\;30^{\circ}$ off-axis angle. Results. The following results were obtained : 1. Internal conical joint showed lower tensile stress value than that of external hex butt joint. 2. When off-axis loading was applied, internal conical joint showed more effective stress distribution than external hex butt joint. 3. External hex butt joint showed lower tensile stress value when the implant diameter was increased. 4. Internal conical joint showed lower tensile stress value than external hex butt joint when the implant diameter was increased. 5. Both of these joint mechanism showed lower tensile stress value when the prosthetic table width was increased. Conclusion. Internal conical joint showed more effective stress distribution than external hex joint. Increasing implant diameter showed more effective stress distribution than increasing prosthetic table width.
Keywords
Implant; Abutment; Abutment screw; Implant-abutment interface; 3-dimensional finite element analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Binon PP. Implants and components : entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:76-94   PUBMED
2 Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, Bidez MW. Influence of hex geometry and table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants, J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:436-40   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Lee JM, Kim YS, Kim CW, Kim YH, 3-D FEA of three different single tooth abutment : cement-retained vs screw-retained, J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1999: 37(2):269-280
4 Haas R, Polak C, Furhauser R, MailathPokorny G, Dortbudak O, Watzek G. A long-term follow-up of 76 Branemark single implants, Clin Oral Impl Res 2002; 13:38-43   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, Bidez MW, Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implant. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:436-40
6 Jorneus L. Screws and cylinders in the Nobelpharma implant system, Nobelpharma News 1987;1:7
7 Jang KS, Kim YS, Kim CW. Three deimensional finite element analysis on the minimum contact fraction of bone-implant interface, J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1997;35(4):627-640
8 English C, Bahat O, Langer B, Sheets CG, What are the clinical limitations of wide-diameter root form endosseous implants? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:293-294
9 Levine R, Clem D, Beagle J, Ganeles J, Johnson P, Solnit G, Keller G. Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of the Solid-Screw ITI Implant for Posterior Single-Tooth Replacements, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:550-556
10 Branemark P-I, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw:Experience from a ten year period, Scand J Plastic Reconst Surg 1977;11(suppl)
11 Richter EJ, In vivo vertical forces on implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:99-108
12 Jarvis W. Biomechanical advantages of wide-diameter implants, Compend Contin Educ Dent 1997;18(7): 687-694
13 Walton JN, MacEntee MI. A prospective study on the maintenance of implant prostheses in private practice, Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:453-458
14 Jemt T. Pettersson P. A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment, J Dent 1993;21:203-208   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Michael R Norton. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Impl Res 1997;8:290-298   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants, J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:582-585
17 Adell R. Lekholm U. RockIer B. Branemark P-I, A 15-yr study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416   DOI
18 Weinberg LA, The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:19-31
19 Weinberg LA, The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:19-31
20 Kallus T. Bessing C. Loose gold screws frequently occur in full arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants for 5years, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:169-178
21 Ivanoff CJ, Gyrondahl K, Bergstrom C, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Influence of variations in implant diameter : A3-to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:173-180
22 Craig RG, Restorative Dental Materials. Ed 6, St Louis : Mosby, 1980:60-61
23 Beaty K. The role of screws in implant systems, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9(suppl):52-54
24 Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC, Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection : An 8-degree taper comapred to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-526
25 Haas R. Mensdorff-Pouilly N. Mailath G. Watzek G. Branemark single tooth implants : A preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:274-279   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Kebir M, Etienne D, Tecucianu JF, Wide-diameter implants: New concepts. Int J Perio Rest Dent 2001;21:149-159
27 Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments nad laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:162-178   PUBMED
28 Hoyer SA, Stanford CM, Buranadham S, Fridrich T, Wagner J, Gratton D. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implantabutment interface : Joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85:599-607   DOI   ScienceOn