• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.717-723
• /
• 2007

Statement of problem. Unreasonable distal cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis can mask functional problems of reconstruction temporarily, but it can cause serious strain and stress around its supported implant and surrounding alveolar bone. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate strain of implants supporting distal cantilevered fixed prosthesis with two different cantilevered length under distal cantilevered static load. Material and methods. A partially edentulous mandibular test model was fabricated with auto-polymerizing resin (POLYUROCK; Metalor technologies, Stuttgart, Swiss) and artificial denture teeth (Endura; Shofu inc., Kyoto, Japan). Two implants-supported 5-unit screw-retained cantilevered fixed prosthesis was made using standard methods with Type III gold alloy (Harmony C&B55; Ivoclar-vivadent, Liechtenstein, Germany) for superstructure and reinforced hard resin (Tescera; Ivoclar-vivadent, Liechtenstein, Germany) for occlusal material. Two strain gauges (KFG-1-120-C1-11L1M2R; KYOWA electronic instruments, Tokyo, Japan) were then attached to the mesial and the distal surface of each standard abutment with adhesive (M-bond 200; Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan). Total four strain gauges were attached to test model and connected to dynamic signal conditioning strain amplifier (CTA1000; Curiotech inc., Paju, Korea). The stepped $20{\sim}100$ N in 25 N increments, cantilevered static load 8mm apart (Group I) or 16mm apart (Group II), were applied using digital push-pull gauge (Push-Pull Scale & Digital Force Gauge, Axis inc., Seoul, Korea). Each step was performed ten times and every strain signal was monitored and recorded. Results. In case of Group I, the strain values were surveyed by $80.7{\sim}353.8{\mu}m$ in Ch1, $7.5{\sim}47.9{\mu}m/m$ in Ch2, $45.7{\sim}278.6{\mu}m/m$ in Ch3 and $-212.2{\sim}718.7{\mu}m/m$ in Ch4 depending on increasing cantilevered static load. On the other hand, the strain values of Group II were surveyed by $149.9{\sim}612.8{\mu}m/m$ in Ch1, $26.0{\sim}168.5{\mu}m/m$ in Ch2, $114.3{\sim}632.3{\mu}m/m$ in Ch3, and $-323.2{\sim}-894.7{\mu}m/m$ in Ch4. Conclusion. A comparative statistical analysis using paired sample t-test about Group I Vs Group II under distal cantilevered load shows that there are statistical significant differences for all 4 channels (P<0.05).