Influence of Crown‐to‐Implant Ratio on Stress Around Single Short‐Wide Implants: A Photoelastic Stress Analysis
Tóm tắt
The aim of this study was to evaluate the photoelastic fringe patterns around two short‐wide implants supporting single crowns with different crown‐to‐implant (C/I) ratios.
External hexagon (EH) cylindrical implants (5 × 7 mm) or Morse Taper (MT) conical implants (5 × 6 mm) were embedded individually into photoelastic resin blocks. Each implant received a single metal‐ceramic crown, with a C/I ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 (n = 10). Each set was positioned in a polariscope and submitted to a 0.5 kgf compressive load, applied axially or obliquely (30°). The polariscope images were digitally recorded, and based on isoclinal and isochromatic fringes, the shear stress was calculated at 5 predetermined points around each implant. Data were analyzed by two‐way ANOVA (α = 0.05).
Under axial loading, the stress was concentrated at the crestal region, and there were no differences between C/I ratio or implant types. In contrast, under oblique loading, EH implants showed lower stress values than the MT group and the 2:1 C/I ratio showed higher stress concentration for both implant types (
MT conical short‐wide implants showed higher stress values that were distributed through a higher area directed to the implant apex. The C/I ratio influences the stress distribution only under oblique loading.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Urdaneta RA, 2012, The survival of ultrashort locking‐taper implants, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 27, 644
das Neves FD, 2006, Short implants–an analysis of longitudinal studies, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 21, 86
Gentile MA, 2005, Survival estimates and risk factors for failure with 6 × 5.7‐mm implants, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 20, 930
Misch CE, 2005, Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use, Dent Today, 24, 64
Sotto‐Maior BS, 2012, Influence of crown‐to‐implant ratio, retention system, restorative material, and occlusal loading on stress concentrations in single short implants, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 27, e13
Bernardes SR, 2009, Photoelastic analysis of stress patterns from different implant‐abutment interfaces, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 24, 781
Anitua E, 2010, Influence of implant length, diameter, and geometry on stress distribution: a finite element analysis, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 30, 89
Rangert BR, 1997, Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 12, 360
Sutpideler M, 2004, Finite element analysis of effect of prosthesis height, angle of force application, and implant offset on supporting bone, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 19, 819
Tawil G, 2006, Influence of prosthetic parameters on the survival and complication rates of short implants, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 21, 275
Theoharidou A, 2008, Abutment screw loosening in single‐implant restorations: a systematic review, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 23, 681
Pieri F, 2011, Influence of implant‐abutment interface design on bone and soft tissue levels around immediately placed and restored single‐tooth implants: a randomized controlled clinical trial, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 26, 169
De Santis D, 2011, Short threaded implants with an oxidized surface to restore posterior teeth: 1‐ to 3‐year results of a prospective study, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 26, 393