The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

INFLUENCE OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT INTERFACE DESIGN, IMPLANT DIAMETER AND PROSTHETIC TABLE WIDTH ON STRENGTH OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT INTERFACE : THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

임플랜트의 지대주 연결방식, 임플랜트의 직경 및 지대주 연결부위의 직경 차이에 따른 응력분포에 관한 삼차원 유한요소분석

  • Oh Se-Woong (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yang Jae-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee Sun-Hyung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 오세웅 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 양재호 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이선형 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 한중석 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Published : 2003.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem. Higher incidence of prosthetic complications such as screw loosening, screw fracture has been reported for posterior single tooth implant. So, there is ongoing research regarding stability of implant-abutment interface. One of those research is increasing the implant diameter and prosthetic table width to improve joint stability. In another part of this research, internal conical type implant-abutment interface was developed and reported joint strength is higher than traditional external hex interface. Purpose. The purpose of this study is to compare stress distribution in single molar implant between external hex butt joint implant and internal conical joint implant when increasing the implant diameter and prosthetic table width : 4mm diameter, 5mm diameter, 5mm diameter/6mm prosthetic table width. Material and method. Non-linear finite element models were created and the 3-dimensional finite element analysis was performed to see the distribution of stress when 300N static loading was applied to model at $0^{\circ},\;15^{\circ},\;30^{\circ}$ off-axis angle. Results. The following results were obtained : 1. Internal conical joint showed lower tensile stress value than that of external hex butt joint. 2. When off-axis loading was applied, internal conical joint showed more effective stress distribution than external hex butt joint. 3. External hex butt joint showed lower tensile stress value when the implant diameter was increased. 4. Internal conical joint showed lower tensile stress value than external hex butt joint when the implant diameter was increased. 5. Both of these joint mechanism showed lower tensile stress value when the prosthetic table width was increased. Conclusion. Internal conical joint showed more effective stress distribution than external hex joint. Increasing implant diameter showed more effective stress distribution than increasing prosthetic table width.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark P-I, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw:Experience from a ten year period, Scand J Plastic Reconst Surg 1977;11(suppl)
  2. Adell R. Lekholm U. RockIer B. Branemark P-I, A 15-yr study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  3. Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants, J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:582-585
  4. Kallus T. Bessing C. Loose gold screws frequently occur in full arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants for 5years, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:169-178
  5. Beaty K. The role of screws in implant systems, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9(suppl):52-54
  6. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments nad laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:162-178
  7. Jemt T. Pettersson P. A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment, J Dent 1993;21:203-208 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90127-C
  8. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. A prospective study on the maintenance of implant prostheses in private practice, Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:453-458
  9. Binon PP. Implants and components : entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:76-94
  10. Haas R. Mensdorff-Pouilly N. Mailath G. Watzek G. Branemark single tooth implants : A preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:274-279 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80205-7
  11. Jorneus L. Screws and cylinders in the Nobelpharma implant system, Nobelpharma News 1987;1:7
  12. Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, Bidez MW. Influence of hex geometry and table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants, J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:436-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70030-2
  13. Michael R Norton. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Impl Res 1997;8:290-298 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x
  14. Levine R, Clem D, Beagle J, Ganeles J, Johnson P, Solnit G, Keller G. Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of the Solid-Screw ITI Implant for Posterior Single-Tooth Replacements, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:550-556
  15. Lee JM, Kim YS, Kim CW, Kim YH, 3-D FEA of three different single tooth abutment : cement-retained vs screw-retained, J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1999: 37(2):269-280
  16. Jang KS, Kim YS, Kim CW. Three deimensional finite element analysis on the minimum contact fraction of bone-implant interface, J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1997;35(4):627-640
  17. Weinberg LA, The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:19-31
  18. Weinberg LA, The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:19-31
  19. Haas R, Polak C, Furhauser R, MailathPokorny G, Dortbudak O, Watzek G. A long-term follow-up of 76 Branemark single implants, Clin Oral Impl Res 2002; 13:38-43 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130104.x
  20. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC, Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection : An 8-degree taper comapred to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-526
  21. Craig RG, Restorative Dental Materials. Ed 6, St Louis : Mosby, 1980:60-61
  22. Richter EJ, In vivo vertical forces on implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:99-108
  23. Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Kebir M, Etienne D, Tecucianu JF, Wide-diameter implants: New concepts. Int J Perio Rest Dent 2001;21:149-159
  24. Jarvis W. Biomechanical advantages of wide-diameter implants, Compend Contin Educ Dent 1997;18(7): 687-694
  25. Hoyer SA, Stanford CM, Buranadham S, Fridrich T, Wagner J, Gratton D. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implantabutment interface : Joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85:599-607 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115250
  26. Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, Bidez MW, Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implant. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:436-40
  27. Ivanoff CJ, Gyrondahl K, Bergstrom C, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Influence of variations in implant diameter : A3-to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:173-180
  28. English C, Bahat O, Langer B, Sheets CG, What are the clinical limitations of wide-diameter root form endosseous implants? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:293-294