The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

A STRAIN GAUGE ANALYSIS OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CANTILEVERED FIXED PROSTHESIS UNDER DISTAL STATIC LOAD

  • Sohn, Byoung-Sup (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University) ;
  • Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University) ;
  • Chang, Ik-Tae (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University) ;
  • Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2007.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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).

Keywords

References

  1. Rodriguez A, Aquilino S, Lund P, Ryther J, Southard T. Evaluation of strain at the terminal abutment site of a fixed mandibular prosthesis during cantilever loading. Int J Prosthodont 1993;2:93-102 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1993.tb00389.x
  2. Shackleton J, Carr L, Slabbert J, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1994;71:23-26 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90250-X
  3. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:8438
  4. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, 1985:128
  5. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockier B, BranemarkPl. A 15-year study of osseaintegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  6. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branernark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7
  7. Takayama H. Biomechanical considerations on osseointegrated implants. Osseointegration and occlusal rehabilitation. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Quintessence Publ Co Ltd, 1990:265-80
  8. Skalak R. Biomechanical consideration in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49: 843-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X
  9. Keaveny TM, Guo XE, Wachtel EF, McMahon TA, Hayes WC. Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains. J Biomech 1994;27:1127-1136 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(94)90053-1
  10. Heckmann SM et al. Cement fixation and screw retention: Parameters of passive fit - An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:466-473 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01027.x
  11. Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:30-37
  12. Bidez MW, Misch CE. Force transfer in implant dentistry: basic concepts and principles. J Oral Implantol 1992;23:264-74
  13. Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prosthesis. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence 1987; p. 129
  14. Stanford CM, Brand RA. Toward an understanding of implant occlusion and strain adaptive bone modelling and remodelling. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:553-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70209-X
  15. Roberts WE. Fundamental principles of bone physiology, metabolism and loading. In: Naert I, van Steenberghe D, Worthington P, editors. Osseointegration in oral rehabilitation. An introductory textbook. London: Quintessence; 1993. p.163-4
  16. Duyck J, Naert I, Van Oosterwyck H, Ronold HJ, Naert I, Vander Sloten J, Ellingsen JE. The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:207-18 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003207.x
  17. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104-11 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  18. Frost HM. Wolff's law and bone's structural adaptations tomechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthodontist 1994;64:175-88
  19. Pilliar RM, Deporter DA, Watson P A, Valiquette N. Dental implant design-effect on bone remodelling. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:467-83 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250405