Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug;112(2):136-42. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.020. Epub 2014 Apr 13.

Implant-abutment interface: a comparison of the ultimate force to failure among narrow-diameter implant systems.

Author information

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, College of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
2
Assistant Professor, Division of Biomedical Sciences, Center for Craniofacial Molecular Biology, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. Electronic address: moshaver@usc.edu.
3
Professor, Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Limited available alveolar ridge bone and space deficiencies are some of the challenging scenarios that have led many dental implant manufacturers to develop narrow-diameter implants of various designs. Clinicians may have concerns about the durability and function of the narrow-diameter implants.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to explore and compare the ultimate failure resistance of the smallest diameter of the 2-stage type implant provided by 5 commonly used dental implant systems.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Thirty implants, Astra OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm and 3.5 mm, Straumann Bone Level 3.3 mm, Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent 3.7 mm, Full Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm, and NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm, 5 of each type, were tested in this study. A rigid clamp was used to hold the implants at a 30-degree angle to a static load vector. The load continued until the specimen broke or obviously deformed. Peak loads were recorded at that point for all the studied implant systems. Student t test and 1-way ANOVA were used to compare the mean peak load values (α=.05).

RESULTS:

The mean fracture/deformation peak load values were 367.20 N ± 98.05 for Astra OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm; 568.80 N ± 85.24 for Astra OsseoSpeed 3.5 mm; 679.00 N ± 81.09 for Full Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm; 553.4 N ± 56.96 for NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm; 802.80 N ± 134.50 for Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent 3.7 mm; and 576.20 N ± 71.45 for Straumann Bone Level 3.3 mm. Generally, a higher load was required to cause failure in implants with larger diameters than in narrower-diameter implants, and more force was necessary to cause failure in Ti6Al4V alloy implants than in commercially pure titanium implants.

CONCLUSIONS:

With regard to implant diameter and ultimate failure strength, Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm was considered to be more advantageous in comparison with the other implants tested.

PMID:
24725612
DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.020
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center