Literature DB >> 25386531

Photoelastic stress analysis in prosthetic implants of different diameters: mini, narrow, standard or wide.

Marcelo Coelho Goiato1, Alves Aldiéris Pesqueira2, Daniela Micheline Dos Santos3, Marcela Filié Haddad4, Amália Moreno5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study investigated the biomechanical behavior of screwed partial fixed prosthesis supported by implants with different diameters (2.5 mm; 3.3 mm and 3.75 mm) by using a photoelastic analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six photoelastic models were fabricated in PL-2 resin as single crowns or splinted 3-unit piece. Models were positioned in a circular polariscope and 100-N axial and oblique (45 degrees) loads were applied in the occlusal surface of the crowns by using a universal testing machine (EMIC). The stresses were photographically recorded and qualitatively analyzed using a software (Adobe Photoshop).
RESULTS: Under axial loading, the number of fringes was inversely proportional to the diameter of the implants in the single crown models. In the splinted 3-unit piece, the 3.75-mm implant promoted lower number of fringes regardless of loading area application. Under oblique loading, a slight increase of fringes number was observed for all groups.
CONCLUSION: The standard implant diameter promoted better stress distribution than the narrow and mini diameter implants. Additionally, the splinted crowns showed a more uniform stress distribution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanical; Dental implantation; Dental stress analysis

Year:  2014        PMID: 25386531      PMCID: PMC4225983          DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8489.4902

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res        ISSN: 0973-709X


  25 in total

Review 1.  The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status.

Authors:  S Sahin; M C Cehreli
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.454

2.  Load fatigue performance of a single-tooth implant abutment system: effect of diameter.

Authors:  Christopher E Quek; Keson B Tan; Jack I Nicholls
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants: a retrospective study of 510 implants.

Authors:  Marco Degidi; Adriano Piattelli; Francesco Carinci
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 6.993

4.  Initial clinical efficacy of 3-mm implants immediately placed into function in conditions of limited spacing.

Authors:  Michael S Reddy; S Jean O'Neal; Sandra Haigh; Ruth Aponte-Wesson; Nico C Geurs
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study.

Authors:  Simon Rupert Allum; Rachel Anne Tomlinson; Rajendra Joshi
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.977

6.  A finite element survey of eleven endosseous implants.

Authors:  M R Rieger; W K Adams; G L Kinzel
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.426

7.  Forces and moments on Branemark implants.

Authors:  B Rangert; T Jemt; L Jörneus
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.804

8.  Retrospective multicenter analysis of immediate provisionalization using one-piece narrow-diameter (3.0-mm) implants.

Authors:  Dong-Seok Sohn; Min-Su Bae; Jeong-Uk Heo; Jun-Sub Park; Sun-Hae Yea; Georgios E Romanos
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 9.  Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants.

Authors:  Marc O Klein; Eik Schiegnitz; Bilal Al-Nawas
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.804

10.  Immediate versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary lateral incisor: a 3-year randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Marco Degidi; Diego Nardi; Adriano Piattelli
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 6.993

View more
  6 in total

1.  Measurement for natural dental neck data of normal adults and its clinical significance on guiding implant restoration.

Authors:  Mingxu Sun; Fang Gu; Junjun Wang; Chengyuan Zhou; Junnan Xia; Hongwei Qin; Jianjun Yang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-09-15

2.  Finite Element Analysis of Bone Stress around Micro-Implants of Different Diameters and Lengths with Application of a Single or Composite Torque Force.

Authors:  Ying-juan Lu; Shao-hai Chang; Jian-tao Ye; Yu-shan Ye; Yan-song Yu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses.

Authors:  Ipsha Rani; Jayakar Shetty; Vahini Reddy
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun

4.  Principles of biomechanics in oral implantology.

Authors:  Avram Manea; Simion Bran; Cristian Dinu; Horatiu Rotaru; Ioan Barbur; Bogdan Crisan; Gabriel Armencea; Florin Onisor; Madalina Lazar; Daniel Ostas; Mihaela Baciut; Sergiu Vacaras; Ileana Mitre; Liana Crisan; Ovidiu Muresan; Rares Roman; Grigore Baciut
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2019-12-15

5.  Effect of Number and Location on Stress Distribution of Mini Dental Implant-Assisted Mandibular Kennedy Class I Removable Partial Denture: Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Wissanee Jia-Mahasap; Chaiy Rungsiyakull; Wipahatpong Bumrungsiri; Natthaphorn Sirisereephap; Pimduen Rungsiyakull
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2022-03-26

6.  Effect of the Location of Dental Mini-Implants on Strain Distribution under Mandibular Kennedy Class I Implant-Retained Removable Partial Dentures.

Authors:  Pimduen Rungsiyakull; Kallaya Kujarearntaworn; Pathawee Khongkhunthian; Michael Swain; Chaiy Rungsiyakull
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2021-05-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.