Open AccessEffect of Varying Fixture Width on Stress and Strain Distribution Associated With an Implant Stack System
Author(s) -
Joseph M. Mahon,
Barry K. Norling,
Rodney D. Phoenix
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
implant dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.538
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1538-2982
pISSN - 1056-6163
DOI - 10.1097/00008505-200009040-00006
Subject(s) - materials science , implant , abutment , strain gauge , dental abutments , biomedical engineering , dentistry , composite material , orthodontics , structural engineering , surgery , medicine , engineering
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the dissipation of a force applied to an assembled stack of implant components. The stack consisted of a 10-mm threaded implant, a screw-retained abutment and a screw-retained gold crown. The dissipation of force was analyzed in relation to varying the implant diameter with and without a concomitant change in abutment diameter. Two experimental groups were evaluated. The first group consisted of 25 titanium screw-form implants (Implant Innovations, Inc.). These implants measured 10 mm in length and 3.25 mm, 3.75 mm, 4.0 mm, 5.0 mm, and 6.0 mm in diameter. The second group included 15 titanium screw-form implants (Nobel Biocare, Inc.) measuring 10 mm in length and 3.75 mm, 4.0 mm, and 5.0 mm in diameter. All implants were embedded in standardized photoelastic resin blocks. Points of interest were marked on each block using standardized templates to ensure consistency. Implants were restored using system-specific conical abutments and standardized single-unit restorations. A strain gauge was affixed to each abutment, and an eccentric load of 176 N was applied to the restoration. Periimplant stresses were measured using photoelastic analysis. Abutment strain was determined using an electronic strain indicator. Data were collated and compared using ANOVA and the Duncan multiple range statistical tests. When stress was analyzed at points on the resin-implant interface or a fixed distance from the interface, stress tended to decrease from the 5-mm-wide implant to the 6-mm-wide implant. Stress in relation to the 3.25-mm, 3.75-mm, and 4.0-mm implant was not as well defined, indicating the possibility that some deformation of implants was occurring. Increased abutment width resulted in decreased abutment strain. Therefore, using a wider abutment may be helpful in preventing preload reduction in clinical applications. This may reduce the incidence of loosening and fracture of abutment and restoration screws.