Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.3.156

Comparison of fatigue fracture strength by fixture diameter of mini implants  

Heo, Yu-Ri (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
Son, Mee-Kyoung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
Choe, Han-Cheol (Department of Dental Material, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
Chung, Chae-Heon (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.50, no.3, 2012 , pp. 156-161 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This study was conducted to obtain difference in fracture strength according to the diameter of one-body O-ring-type of mini implant fixture, to determine the resistance of mini implant to masticatory pressure, and to examine whether overdenture using O-ring type mini implant is clinically usable to maxillary and mandibular edentulous patients. Materials and methods: For this study, 13 mm long one body O-ring-type mini implants of different diameters (2.0 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm) (Dentis, Daegu, Korea) were prepared, 5 for each diameter. The sample was placed at $30^{\circ}$ from the horizontal surface on the universal testing machine, and off-axis loading was applied until permanent deformation occurred and the load was taken as maximum compressive strength. The mean value of the 5 samples was calculated, and the compressive strength of implant fixture was compared according to diameter. In addition, we prepared 3 samples for each diameter, and applied loading equal to 80%, 60% and 40% of the compressive strength until fracture occurred. Then, we measured the cycle number on fracture and analyzed fatigue fracture for each diameter. Additionally, we measured the cycle number on fracture that occurred when a load of 43 N, which is the average masticatory force of complete denture, was applied. The difference on compressive strength between each group was tested statistically using one-way ANOVA test. Results: Compressive strength according to the diameter of mini implant was $101.5{\pm}14.6N$, $149{\pm}6.1N$ and $276.0{\pm}13.4N$, respectively, for diameters 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm. In the results of fatigue fracture test at 43 N, fracture did not occur until $2{\times}10^6$ cycles at diameter 2.0 mm, and until $5{\times}10^6$ cycles at 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm. Conclusion: Compressive strength increased significantly with increasing diameter of mini implant. In the results of fatigue fracture test conducted under the average masticatory force of complete denture, fracture did not occur at any of the three diameters. All of the three diameters are usable for supporting overdenture in maxillary and mandibular edentulous patients, but considering that the highest masticatory force of complete denture is 157 N, caution should be used in case diameter 2.0 mm or 2.5 mm is used.
Keywords
Mini implant; Fatigue fracture; Strength;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155-70.   DOI
2 Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-72.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Tecucianu JF, Celletti R, Lazzara R. Small-diameter implants: indications and contraindications. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:186-94.   DOI
4 Zinsli B, Sagesser T, Mericske E, Mericske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:92-9.
5 Barber HD, Seckinger R. The role of the small diameter implant: a preliminary report on the mini implant system. Compendium 1994;15:1390-2.
6 Cho YS. The comparison of compression strength of the smallest implant various diameter mini-implants. MS Thesis. In: Korea, Yonsei University School of Dentistry, 2008.
7 Michael CG, Javid NS, Colaizzi FA, Gibbs CH. Biting strength and chewing forces in complete denture wearers. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:549-53.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Shatkin TE, Shatkin S, Oppenheimer BD, Oppenheimer AJ. Mini dental implants for long-term fixed and removable prosthetics: a retrospective analysis of 2514 implants placed over a five-year period. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007;28:92-9.
9 Bulard RA, Vance JB. Multi-clinic evaluation using mini-dental implants for long-term denture stabilization: a preliminary biometric evaluation. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:892-7.
10 Cho SC, Froum S, Tai CH, Cho YS, Elian N, Tarnow DP. Immediate loading of narrow-diameter implants with overdentures in severely atrophic mandibles. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2007;19:167-74.
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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 Allum SR, Tomlinson RA, Joshi R. The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:553-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Kanie T, Nagata M, Ban S. Comparison of the mechanical properties of 2 prosthetic mini-implants. Implant Dent 2004;13:251-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Park WJ, Cho IH. Fatigue fracture of different dental implant system under cyclic loading. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:424-34.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Huang HM, Tsai CM, Chang CC, Lin CT, Lee SY. Evaluation of loading conditions on fatigue-failed implants by fracture surface analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:854-9.