Top

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Peri-implant biomechanical responses to standard, short-wide, and double mini implants replacing missing molar supporting hybrid ceramic or full-metal crowns under axial and off-axial loading: an in vitro study

Authors: Lamiaa Said Elfadaly, Lamiaa Sayed Khairallah, Mona Atteya Al Agroudy

Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical response of the peri-implant bone to standard, short-wide, and double mini implants replacing missing molar supporting either hybrid ceramic crowns (Lava Ultimate restorative) or full-metal crowns under two different loading conditions (axial and off-axial loading) using strain gauge analysis.

Methods

Three single-molar implant designs, (1) single, 3.8-mm (regular) diameter implant, (2) single, 5.8-mm (wide) diameter implant, and (3) two 2.5-mm diameter (double) implants connected through a single-molar crown, were embedded in epoxy resin by the aid of a surveyor to ensure their parallelism. Each implant supported full-metal crowns made of Ni-Cr alloy and hybrid ceramic with standardized dimensions. Epoxy resin casts were prepared to receive 4 strain gauges around each implant design, on the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal surfaces. Results were analyzed statistically.

Results

Results showed that implant design has statistically significant effect on peri-implant microstrains, where the standard implant showed the highest mean microstrain values followed by double mini implants, while the short-wide implant showed the lowest mean microstrain values. Concerning the superstructure material, implants supporting Lava Ultimate crowns had statistically significant higher mean microstrain values than those supporting full-metal crowns. Concerning the load direction, off-axial loading caused uneven distribution of load with statistically significant higher microstrain values on the site of off-axial loading (distal surface) than the axial loading.

Conclusions

Implant design, superstructure material, and load direction significantly affect peri-implant microstrains.

Mazor Z, Lorean A, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Replacement of a molar with 2 narrow diameter dental implants. Implant Dent. 2012;21(1):36–8.CrossRefPubMed

Atwood D. Postextraction changes in the adult mandible as illustrated by micrographs of midsagittal sections and serial cephalometric roentgenograms. J Prosthet Dent. 1963;13:810–24.CrossRef

Felice P, Pellegrino G, Checchi L, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Vertical augmentation with interpositional blocks of anorganic bovine bone vs. 7-mm-long implants in posterior mandibles: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(12):1394–403.CrossRefPubMed

Shatkin T, Petrotto C. Mini dental implants: a retrospective analysis of 5640 implants placed over a 12-year period. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012;33 Spec 3(Spec 3):2–9.PubMed

Monje A, Chan HL, Fu JH, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Are short dental implants (<10 mm) effective? A meta-analysis on prospective clinical trials. J Periodontol. 2013;84(7):895–904.

Christensen G. The ‘mini’-implant has arrived. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;13:387–90.CrossRef

Flanagan D, Mascolo A. The mini dental implant in fixed and removable prosthetics: a review. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37 Spec No(Special Issue):123–32.CrossRefPubMed

Bidez M, Misch C. Force transfer in implant dentistry: basic concepts and principles. J Oral Implantol. 1992;18(3):264–74.PubMed

Branemark P, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prosthesis. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. 1987. p. 129.

10.

Strain gauge measurement—a tutorial. 1998

11.

Flanagan D. Fixed partial dentures and crowns supported by very small diameter dental implants in compromised sites. Implant Dent. 2008;17(2):182–91.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kheiralla L, Younis J. Peri-implant biomechanical responses to standard, short-wide and mini implants supporting single crowns under axial and off-axial loading (An In-Vitro study). J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(1):42-52.

13.

Renouard F, Rangert B. Risk factors in implant dentistry, Quintessence. Second editionth ed. 1999.

14.

Mericske-Stern R, Assal P, Merickse E, Ing W. Occlusal force and oral tactile sensibility measured in partially edentulous patients with ITI implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10:345–54.PubMed

15.

Bozkaya D, Muftu S, Muftu A. Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(6):523–30.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Barbier L, Vander SJ, Krzesinski G, Schepers E, Van der Perre G. Finite element analysis of non-axial versus axial loading of oral implants in the mandible of the dog. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25(11):847–58.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Saime S, Murat C, Emine Y. The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses—a review. J Dent. 2002;30:271–82.CrossRef

18.

Balshi T, Hernandez R, Pryszlak M, Rangert B. A comparative study of one implant versus two replacing a single molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(3):372–8.PubMed

19.

Sullivan D, Siddiqui A. Wide diameter implants: overcoming problems. Dent Today. 1994;13:50–7.PubMed

20.

Bahat O, Handelsman M. Use of wide implants and double implants in the posterior jaw: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(3):379–86.PubMed

21.

Petropoulos V, Wolfinger G, Balshi T. Complications of mandibular molar replacement with a single implant: a case report. J Can Dent Assoc. 2004;70(4):238–42.PubMed

22.

Jackson BJ. Small diameter implants: specific indications and considerations for the posterior mandible: a case report. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37 Spec No:156–64.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Misch C. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2008. p. 264–6.

24.

Von Recum A. Handbook of biomaterials evaluation: scientific, technical and clinical testing of implant materials. 1986.

25.

Shigley J, Mischke C. Mechanical engineering design. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1989. p. 325–70.

26.

Bidez M, Misch C. Issues in bone mechanics related to oral implants. Implant Dent. 1992;1:289–94.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kiliçarslan M, Eskitascioglu G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93:227–34.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Bidez M, Misch C. Clinical biomechanics in implant dentistry. 2005. p. 310–2. Dental implant prosthetics.

29.

Misch C, Suzuki I, Misch-Dietch D. A positive correlation between occlusion between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss -literature support. implant dent. 2005;14:108–16.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Misch C. Implant design considerations for the posterior regions of the mouth. Implant Dent. 1999;8:376–86.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(1):20–5.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Shetty S, Puthukkat N, Bhat S, Shenoy K. Short implants: a new dimension in rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla and mandible. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry. 2014;4(2):66.CrossRef

33.

Misch C, Bidez M. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999.

34.

Misch C. Implant body size: a biomechanical and esthetic rationale, Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2008. p. 160–77.

35.

O'Mahony A, Bowles Q, Woolsey G, Robinson S, Spencer P. Stress distribution in the single-unit osseointegrated dental implant: finite element analyses of axial and off-axial loading. Implant Dent. 2000;9(3):207–18.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Fawzi S. The effect of dental implant design on bone induced stress distribution and implant displacement. Int J Comput Appl. 2013;74(17):15–20.

37.

Flanagan D. Avoiding osseous grafting in the atrophic posterior mandible for implant-supported fixed partial dentures: a report of 2 cases. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37(6):705–11.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Seong W, Korioth T, Hodges J. Experimentally induced abutment strains in three types of single-molar implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:318–26.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Jarvis W. Biomechanical advantage of wide-diameter implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997;18:687–94.PubMed

40.

Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörnéus L. Forces and moments on Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:241–7.PubMed

41.

Misch CE. A scientific rationale for dental implant design, DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETICS. 2005. p. 331.

42.

Misch C. Occlusal considerations for implant-supported prostheses, Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 1993.

43.

Rangert B. Biomechanical considerations when choosing a platform. Nobel Biocare Global Forum. 1996;10(4):4.

44.

Linish V, Peteris A. Restorative factors that affect the biomechanics of the dental implant. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2003;5:123–8.

45.

Skalak R. Aspects of biomechanical considerations. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson, eds. Tissue integrated prostheses. 1985: p. 117–28.

46.

Davis D, Rimrott R, Zarb G. Studies on frameworks for osseointegrated prostheses: part 2. The effect of adding acrylic resin or porcelain to form the occlusal superstructure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3(4):275–80.PubMed

47.

Gracis S, Nicholls J, Chalupnik J, Yuodelis R. Shock-absorbing behavior of five restorative materials used on implants. Int J Prosthodont. 1990;4:282–91.

48.

Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:843–8.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Misch C. Clinical biomechanics in implant dentistry, Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3rd ed. 2008. p. 543–56. mosby,inc.

50.

Lundgren D, Laurell L. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontol 2000. 1994;4:23–40.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander SJ, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Influence of prosthesis material on the loading of implants that support a fixed partial prosthesis: in vivo study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(2):100–9.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Stegaroiu R, Kusakari H, Nishiyama S, Miyakawa O. Influence of prosthesis material on stress distribution in bone and implant: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(6):781–90.PubMed

53.

Stegaroiu R, Khraisat A, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Influence of superstructure materials on strain around an implant under 2 loading conditions: a technical investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(5):735–42.PubMed

54.

Desai S, Singh R, Karthikeyan I, Reetika J. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of effect of prosthetic materials and short implant biomechanics on D4 bone under immediate loading. J Dent Implant. 2012;2:2–8.CrossRef

55.

Sertgoz A. Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont. 1997;10(1):19–27.PubMed

56.

Wang T, Leu L, Wang J, Lin L. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17(2):231–7.PubMed

Title: Peri-implant biomechanical responses to standard, short-wide, and double mini implants replacing missing molar supporting hybrid ceramic or full-metal crowns under axial and off-axial loading: an in vitro study
Authors: Lamiaa Said Elfadaly
Lamiaa Sayed Khairallah
Mona Atteya Al Agroudy
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2198-4034
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0094-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Peri-implant biomechanical responses to standard, short-wide, and double mini implants replacing missing molar supporting hybrid ceramic or full-metal crowns under axial and off-axial loading: an in vitro study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Six-implant-supported immediate fixed rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous maxillae with tilted distal implants

Investigation of peri-implant tissue conditions and peri-implant tissue stability in implants placed with simultaneous augmentation procedure: a 3-year retrospective follow-up analysis of a newly developed bone level implant system

A novel non-surgical method for mild peri-implantitis- a multicenter consecutive case series

Ridge preservation using an in situ hardening biphasic calcium phosphate (β-TCP/HA) bone graft substitute—a clinical, radiological, and histological study

Mechanical and degradation properties of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF), concentrated growth factors (CGF), and platelet-poor plasma-derived fibrin (PPTF)

Comparative evaluation of the stability of two different dental implant designs and surgical protocols—a pilot study