Stability of implant-abutment connection in three different systems after fatigue test
- PMID: 36511067
- PMCID: PMC9709864
- DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_247_21
Stability of implant-abutment connection in three different systems after fatigue test
Abstract
Aim: Abutment screw loosening of implant-supported prosthesis causes a mismatch between the abutment and the implant. This screw loosening is influenced by the implant-abutment connection type, however, with contradictory results reported in different studies. The present study evaluates the stability of abutment-implant connections in three different systems before and after the fatigue test.
Settings and design: Thirty implants (4.3 mm in diameter and 12 mm in length) were divided into three groups of 10: Implantium, Zimmer, and straight internal hexagonal connection (SIC) implants.
Materials and methods: Two torques of 35 Ncm with an interval of 10 min were applied, followed by measuring removal torque value (RTV). The samples were re-torqued and then underwent a simulation of 1-year chewing clinical performance of dental implant under axial force of 400 N, with a frequency of 8 Hz (one million cycles). After fatigue test, the RTV was calculated and recorded.
Statistical analysis: The mean RTVs obtained before and after cyclic load were analyzed by SPSS version 22 software using multivariate analysis.
Results: Significant differences in RTV and role of cyclic loading were found between SIC and Implantium groups (P = 0.006 and 0.021, respectively), as well as between Zimmer and SIC groups (P = 0.032 and 0.006, respectively), but not between Zimmer and Implantium groups (P = 0.771 and 0.248, respectively).
Conclusion: The type of connection could affect the screw loosening, the preload loss, and the implant component stability. SIC group revealed the highest RTVs before and after cyclic loading.
Keywords: Dental implant; fatigue; reverse torque; screw loosening.
Conflict of interest statement
None
Figures
References
-
- Clark D, Levin L. In the dental implant era, why do we still bother saving teeth? Dent Traumatol. 2019;35:368–75. - PubMed
-
- Van Weehaeghe M, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. A prospective, split-mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:989–96. - PubMed
-
- Ghensi P, Tonetto G, Soldini C, Bettio E, Mortellaro C, Soldini C. Dental implants with a platform-switched morse taper connection and an osteo growth induction surface. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:1049–54. - PubMed
-
- Moraes SL, Verri FR, Santiago JF Júnior, Almeida DA, Lemos CA, Gomes JM, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of varying diameter and connection type in implants with high crown-implant ratio. Braz Dent J. 2018;29:36–42. - PubMed
-
- Nicolas-Silvente AI, Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-Garcia I, Jimenez-Guerra A, Monsalve-Guil L, Ayuso-Montero R, et al. Influence of connection type and platform diameter on titanium dental implants fatigue: Non-axial loading cyclic test analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:E8988. - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources