The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of type and position of abutment connection on microstrain distribution: an in vitro study

  • Jekita Siripru (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Srinakharinwirot University) ;
  • Usanee Puengpaiboon (Department of General Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University) ;
  • Chamaiporn Sukjamsri (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University) ;
  • Basel Mahardawi (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Napapa Aimjirakul (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Srinakharinwirot University)
  • Received : 2024.04.29
  • Accepted : 2024.09.09
  • Published : 2024.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS. Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION. The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University: Grant numbers 363/2565.

References

  1. Linkevicius T. Zero bone loss concepts. 1st ed. Quintessence Publishing Company, Incorporated, llinois, USA; 2019. p. 181-93. 
  2. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Bragger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:141-51. 
  3. Ma S, Fenton A. Screw- versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:127-45. 
  4. Quaresma SE, Cury PR, Sendyk WR, Sendyk C. A finite element analysis of two different dental implants: stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:1-6. 
  5. Jafarian M, Mirhashemi FS, Emadi N. Finite element analysis of stress distribution around a dental implant with different amounts of bone loss: an in vitro study. Dent Med Probl 2019;56:27-32. 
  6. Savignano R, Soltanzadeh P, Suprono MS. Computational biomechanical analysis of engaging and non-engaging abutments for implant screw-retained fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthodont 2021;30:604-9. 
  7. Schnutenhaus S, Wagner M, Edelmann C, Luthardt RG, Rudolph H. Factors influencing the accuracy of freehand implant placement: a prospective clinical study. Dent J (Basel) 2021;9:54. 
  8. Suedam V, Moretti Neto RT, Sousa EA, Rubo JH. Effect of cantilever length and alloy framework on the stress distribution in peri-implant area of cantilevered implant-supported fixed partial dentures. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24:114-20. 
  9. Heo YK, Lim YJ. A newly designed screw- and cement-retained prosthesis and its abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:612-4. 
  10. Dogus SM, Kurtz KS, Watanabe I, Griggs JA. Effect of engaging abutment position in implant-borne, screw-retained three-unit fixed cantilevered prostheses. J Prosthodont 2011;20:348-54. 
  11. Silveira MPM, Campaner LM, Bottino MA, Nishioka RS, Borges ALS, Tribst JPM. Influence of the dental implant number and load direction on stress distribution in a 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Dent Med Probl 2021;58:69-74. 
  12. Sallam H, Kheiralla LS, Aldawakly A. Microstrains around standard and mini implants supporting different bridge designs. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:221-9. 
  13. Dos Santos Marsico V, Lehmann RB, de Assis Claro CA, Amaral M, Vitti RP, Neves ACC, da Silva Concilio LR. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of occlusal splint and implant connection on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and peri-implantal bone. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017;80:141-8. 
  14. Rungsiyakull P, Kujarearntaworn K, Khongkhunthian P, Swain M, Rungsiyakull C. Effect of the location of dental mini-implants on strain distribution under mandibular Kennedy Class I implant-retained removable partial dentures. Int J Dent 2021;2021:6688521. 
  15. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38:52-4. 
  16. Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:156-8. 
  17. Liaw K, Delfini RH, Abrahams JJ. Dental Implant Complications. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2015;36:427-33. 
  18. Lee H, Park SM, Noh K, Ahn SJ, Shin S, Noh G. Biomechanical stability of internal bone-level implant: Dependency on hex or non-hex structure. Struct Eng Mech 2020;74:567-76. 
  19. Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2012;40:363-408. 
  20. Rutkunas V, Dirse J, Kules D, Simonaitis T. Misfit simulation on implant prostheses with different combinations of engaging and nonengaging titanium bases. Part 1: Stereomicroscopic assessment of the active and passive fit. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:589-96. 
  21. Janda M, Larsson C, Mattheos N. Influence of misfit on the occurrence of porcelain veneer fractures in implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. Part 2: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34:458-62. 
  22. Toia M, Stocchero M, Jinno Y, Wennerberg A, Becktor JP, Jimbo R, Halldin A. Effect of misfit at implant-level framework and supporting bone on internal connection implants: mechanical and finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:320-8. 
  23. Cavallaro J Jr, Greenstein G. Angled implant abutments: a practical application of available knowledge. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:150-8. 
  24. Eazhil R, Swaminathan SV, Gunaseelan M, Kannan GV, Alagesan C. Impact of implant diameter and length on stress distribution in osseointegrated implants: A 3D FEA study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016;6:590-6. 
  25. Matsushita Y, Kitoh M, Mizuta K, Ikeda H, Suetsugu T. Two-dimensional FEM analysis of hydroxyapatite implants: diameter effects on stress distribution. J Oral Implantol 1990;16:6-11. 
  26. Flanagan D. Fixed partial dentures and crowns supported by very small diameter dental implants in compromised sites. Implant Dent 2008;17:182-91. 
  27. Lee H, Jo M, Sailer I, Noh G. Effects of implant diameter, implant-abutment connection type, and bone density on the biomechanical stability of implant components and bone: A finite element analysis study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:716-28. 
  28. Rubo JH, Capello Souza EA. Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:105-13. 
  29. Oyar P, Durkan R, Deste G. The effect of the design of a mandibular implant-supported zirconia prosthesis on stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:502.e1-11. 
  30. Alencar SM, Nogueira LB, Leal de Moura W, Rubo JH, Saymo de Oliveira Silva T, Martins GA, Moura CD. FEA of peri-implant stresses in fixed partial denture prostheses with cantilevers. J Prosthodont 2017;26:150-5. 
  31. de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, Almeida DA, Santiago Junior JF, Lemos CA, Pellizzer EP. Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2017;20:663-70. 
  32. Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004;74:3-15.