Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
ASH 2024 Annual Meeting 2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on adolescent vaping

LIVE: Wednesday 29th January, 18:00-19:30 CET

Growing numbers of young people are using e-cigarettes, despite warnings of respiratory effects and addiction. How can doctors tackle the epidemic, and what health effects should you prepare to manage in your clinics?
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
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

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
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
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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.
6.
Christensen G. The ‘mini’-implant has arrived. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;13:387–90.CrossRef
7.
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
8.
Bidez M, Misch C. Force transfer in implant dentistry: basic concepts and principles. J Oral Implantol. 1992;18(3):264–74.PubMed
9.
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
Metadata
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

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments: 3M™ESPE™ MDIs versus Ankylos®

  • Open Access
  • Research

The zygomatic implant perforated (ZIP) flap: a new technique for combined surgical reconstruction and rapid fixed dental rehabilitation following low-level maxillectomy

  • Open Access
  • Case Report

Novel expandable short dental implants in situations with reduced vertical bone height—technical note and first results

  • Open Access
  • Technical advance

Porous titanium granules in the treatment of peri-implant osseous defects—a 7-year follow-up study

  • Open Access
  • Short report

Implant decontamination with phosphoric acid during surgical peri-implantitis treatment: a RCT

  • Open Access
  • Research

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

  • Open Access
  • Research