Mechanical Resistance of a 2.9-mm-Diameter Dental Implant With a Morse-Taper Implant-Abutment Connection.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Alice Alberti, Stefano Corbella, Luca Francetti
{"title":"Mechanical Resistance of a 2.9-mm-Diameter Dental Implant With a Morse-Taper Implant-Abutment Connection.","authors":"Alice Alberti,&nbsp;Stefano Corbella,&nbsp;Luca Francetti","doi":"10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among the complications that can occur at dental implants, the fracture of any implant component is a relatively infrequent but clinically relevant problem. Because of their mechanical characteristics, small diameter implants are at higher risk of such complication. The aim of this laboratory and finite element method (FEM) study was to compare the mechanical behavior of a 2.9- and 3.3-mm-diameter implant with a conical connection under standard static and dynamic conditions, following the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14801:2017. Finite element analysis was performed to compare the stress distribution on the tested implant systems under a 300-N, 30° inclined force. Static tests were performed with a load cell of 2 kN; the force was applied on the experimental samples at 30° with respect to the implant-abutment axis, with an arm of 5.5 mm. Fatigue tests were performed with decreasing loads, at 2-Hz frequency, until 3 specimens survived without any damage after 2 million cycles. The emergence profile of the abutment resulted the most stressed area in finite element analysis, with a maximum stress of 5829 and 5480 MPa for 2.9- and 3.3-mm-diameter implant complex, respectively. The mean maximum load resulted in 360 N for 2.9-mm-diameter and 370 N for 3.3-mm-diameter implants. The fatigue limit was recorded to be 220 and 240 N, respectively. Despite the more favorable results of 3.3-mm-diameter implants, the difference between the tested implants could be considered clinically negligible. This is probably due to the conical design of the implant-abutment connection, which has been reported to present low stress values in the implant neck region, thus increasing the fracture resistance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50101,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"49 3","pages":"323-329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00258","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among the complications that can occur at dental implants, the fracture of any implant component is a relatively infrequent but clinically relevant problem. Because of their mechanical characteristics, small diameter implants are at higher risk of such complication. The aim of this laboratory and finite element method (FEM) study was to compare the mechanical behavior of a 2.9- and 3.3-mm-diameter implant with a conical connection under standard static and dynamic conditions, following the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14801:2017. Finite element analysis was performed to compare the stress distribution on the tested implant systems under a 300-N, 30° inclined force. Static tests were performed with a load cell of 2 kN; the force was applied on the experimental samples at 30° with respect to the implant-abutment axis, with an arm of 5.5 mm. Fatigue tests were performed with decreasing loads, at 2-Hz frequency, until 3 specimens survived without any damage after 2 million cycles. The emergence profile of the abutment resulted the most stressed area in finite element analysis, with a maximum stress of 5829 and 5480 MPa for 2.9- and 3.3-mm-diameter implant complex, respectively. The mean maximum load resulted in 360 N for 2.9-mm-diameter and 370 N for 3.3-mm-diameter implants. The fatigue limit was recorded to be 220 and 240 N, respectively. Despite the more favorable results of 3.3-mm-diameter implants, the difference between the tested implants could be considered clinically negligible. This is probably due to the conical design of the implant-abutment connection, which has been reported to present low stress values in the implant neck region, thus increasing the fracture resistance.

2.9 mm直径莫尔斯锥种植体-基台连接牙种植体的机械阻力。
在牙科种植体中可能发生的并发症中,任何种植体部件的骨折都是一个相对罕见但与临床相关的问题。由于其机械特性,小直径种植体发生此类并发症的风险较高。根据国际标准化组织(ISO) 14801:2017的要求,本实验室和有限元方法(FEM)研究的目的是比较2.9 mm和3.3 mm直径的锥形连接种植体在标准静态和动态条件下的力学行为。通过有限元分析比较了在300-N、30°倾斜力作用下测试种植体系统的应力分布。静力试验采用2kn的称重传感器;受力方向与种植体-基台轴成30°,臂长5.5 mm。在2 hz频率下进行减载疲劳试验,直到3个试件在200万次循环后无损伤存活。在有限元分析中,基牙的出牙面应力最大,2.9 mm和3.3 mm种植体的最大应力分别为5829和5480 MPa。2.9 mm直径种植体的平均最大载荷为360 N, 3.3 mm直径种植体的平均最大载荷为370 N。疲劳极限分别为220和240 N。尽管3.3 mm直径的种植体效果更好,但两种种植体之间的差异在临床上可以忽略不计。这可能是由于种植体-基台连接的锥形设计,据报道,这种设计在种植体颈部区域呈现低应力值,从而增加了抗骨折性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Oral Implantology
Journal of Oral Implantology DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
54
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication of the American Academy of Implant Dentistry and of the American Academy of Implant Prosthodontics, is dedicated to providing valuable information to general dentists, oral surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists, scientists, clinicians, laboratory owners and technicians, manufacturers, and educators. Implant basics, prosthetics, pharmaceuticals, the latest research in implantology, implant surgery, and advanced implant procedures are just some of the topics covered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信