Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 8;15(18):6235.
doi: 10.3390/ma15186235.

Influence of Abutment Design on Biomechanical Behavior to Support a Screw-Retained 3-Unit Fixed Partial Denture

Guilherme da Rocha Scalzer Lopes  1 , Jefferson David Melo de Matos  1   2 , Daher Antonio Queiroz  3 , João Paulo Mendes Tribst  4 , Nathália de Carvalho Ramos  1   5 , Mateus Garcia Rocha  2 , Adriano Baldotto Barbosa  6 , Marco Antonio Bottino  1 , Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges  1 , Renato Sussumu Nishioka  1
Affiliations

Influence of Abutment Design on Biomechanical Behavior to Support a Screw-Retained 3-Unit Fixed Partial Denture

Guilherme da Rocha Scalzer Lopes et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of Morse taper implants using different abutments (CMN abutment [(CMN Group] and miniconical abutments [MC Group]), indicated to support a screw-retained 3-unit fixed partial denture. For the in vitro test, polyurethane blocks were fabricated for both groups (n = 10) and received three implants in the "offset" configuration and their respective abutments (CMN or MC) with a 3-unit fixed partial denture. Four strain gauges were bonded to the surface of each block. For the finite element analysis, 3D models of both groups were created and exported to the analysis software to perform static structural analysis. All structures were considered homogeneous, isotropic, and elastic. The contacts were considered non-linear with a friction coefficient of 0.3 between metallic structures and considered bonded between the implant and substrate. An axial load of 300 N was applied in three points (A, B, and C) for both methods. The microstrain and the maximum principal stress were considered as analysis criteria. The obtained data were submitted to the Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Dunn's multiple comparison test (α = 5%). The results obtained by strain gauge showed no statistical difference (p = 0.879) between the CMN (645.3 ± 309.2 με) and MC (639.3 ± 278.8 με) and allowed the validation of computational models with a difference of 6.3% and 6.4% for the microstrains in the CMN and MC groups, respectively. Similarly, the results presented by the computational models showed no statistical difference (p = 0.932) for the CMN (605.1 ± 358.6 με) and MC (598.7 ± 357.9 με) groups. The study concluded that under favorable conditions the use of CMN or MP abutments to support a fixed partial denture can be indicated.

Keywords: biomechanics; dental implants; finite element analysis; strain gauge.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Prosthesis on Sirona InEos Blue scanner base; (b) scanning; (c) silicone-based prosthesis with the application of Cerec Optispray (Cerec Optispray, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Lines and meshes over the.STL file; (B) 3D model of the 3-unit fixed partial denture.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Final geometries according to the groups: (A) CMN; (B) MC.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Finite element meshes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Strain gauges are arranged between the implants and the application load points. Letters showing the different loading points.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Microstrains mean the CMN and MC groups for both methodologies according to the different loading points.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Maximum principal stress (MPa) at the prosthesis for the load application at points A, B, and C (CMN and MC groups).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Maximum principal stress (MPa) at the screws for the load application at points A, B, and C (CMN and MC groups).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Maximum principal stress (MPa) at the abutments for the load application at points A, B, and C (CMN and MC groups).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Maximum principal stress (MPa) at the implants for the load application at points A, B, and C (CMN and MC groups).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Microstrains (με) at the substrate for the load application at points A, B, and C (CMN and MC groups).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pjetursson B.E., Zarauz C., Strasding M., Sailer I., Zwahlen M., Zembic A. A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018;18:160–183. doi: 10.1111/clr.13362. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lindhe J., Meyle J. Group D of the European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus report of the sixth European workshop on periodontology. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008;35:282–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01283.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Malchiodi L., Cucchi A., Ghensi P., Consonni D., Nocini P.F. Influence of crown–implant ratio on implant success rates andcrestal bone levels: A 36-month follow-up prospective study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014;25:240–251. doi: 10.1111/clr.12105. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Urban I.A., Barootchi S., Tavelli L., Wang H.L. Inter-Implant Papilla Reconstruction via a Bone and Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Case Report with a Long-Term Follow-up. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2021;41:169–175. doi: 10.11607/prd.5280. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Toniollo M.B., Vieira L.J.P., Dos Santos Sá M., Macedo A.P., Melo J.P., Jr., Terada A.S.S.D. Stress distribution of three-unit fixed partial prostheses (conventional and pontic) supported by three or two implants: 3D finite element analysis of ductile materials. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 2019;22:706–712. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2019.1588254. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources