Experimental and Numeric Stress Analysis of Titanium and Zirconia One-Piece Dental Implants

ELsyad, Moustafa Abdou; Al-Mahdy, Yasmeen Fathy; Salloum, Mahmoud Gamal; Elsaih, Ehab

doi:10.11607/jomi.2467

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 24 The use of 2 strain gauges around each implants to measure the strain around the implants was also mentioned in other studies. 32 33 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A digitized universal testing machine (LLOYD LRX, LLOYD instruments Ltd., Fareham, Hampshire, UK) was used to apply a vertical static load both unilaterally and bilaterally. 9 32 33 For bilateral load application, a metal bar (6 cm in length, 1 cm in width, and 2 mm in thickness) was positioned in the region of the first molars on the occlusion rim between the right and left denture bases. The forces were delivered to the center of the metal bar using a loading pin (applicator) ( Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 ). This was done for reproducibility, accommodating the tip of the loading pin on the same location (notch), and preventing slippage of the pin 32 33 All measurements were repeated 5 times for each overdenture, allowing at least 5 minutes for heat dissipation, and the mean of the recorded microstrains was calculated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Strains around distally inclined implants retaining mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments: anin vitrostudy

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe aim of the present study was to evaluate, by means of strain gauge analysis, the effect of different implant angulations on strains around two implants retaining mandibular overdenture with Locator attachments.MATERIALS AND METHODSFour duplicate mandibular acrylic models were constructed. Two implants were inserted in the canine regions using the following degrees of distal inclinations: group I (control); 0°, group II; 10°, group III; 20°, and group IV; 30°. Locator pink attachments were used to connect the overdenture to the implants and Locator red (designed for severely angled implants) was used for group IV (group IVred). For each group, two linear strain gauges were attached at the mesial and distal surfaces of the acrylic resin around each implant. Peri-implant strain was measured on loading and non-loading sides during bilateral and unilateral loading.RESULTSFor all groups, the mesial surfaces of the implants at loading and non-loading sides experienced compressive (negative) strains, while the distal implant surfaces showed tensile (positive) strains. Group IV showed the highest strain, followed by group III, group II. Both group I and group IVred showed the lowest strain. The strain gauges at the mesial surface of the loading side recorded the highest strain, and the distal surface at non-loading side showed the lowest strain. Unilateral loading recorded significantly higher strain than bilateral loading.CONCLUSIONPeri-implant strains around two implants used to retain mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments increase as distal implant inclination increases, except when red nylon inserts were used.

show abstract

“… 24 The use of 2 strain gauges around each implants to measure the strain around the implants was also mentioned in other studies. 32 33 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strains around distally inclined implants retaining mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments: anin vitrostudy

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long distal extensions (15 mm) were added and their design approved by the investigators (MS 1 & FM) before being sent to the Cares ® milling center for fabrication. Although the recommended length for cantilever bars is between 5 and 7 mm and should not extend 15 mm (Elsyad et al, 2013;Mericske-Stern, 1996;Mericske-Stern et al, 2000).…”

Section: Experimental Group (Eg)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular two‐implant overdentures with CAD‐CAM milled bars with distal extensions or retentive anchors: A randomized controlled trial

Srinivasan

Schimmel

Buser

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to demonstrate the noninferiority of mandibular 2-implant overdentures (IODs) on a CAD-CAM milled bar with long distal extensions (MBDE) against IODs on retentive anchors (RA). Methods: Forty edentulous participants rehabilitated with a maxillary conventional denture and a mandibular 2-IOD participated in this trial. They were randomized into two groups [Control group (CG): RA + gold matrices; Experimental group (EG): MBDE + gold clip]. The outcomes included implant survival rate (ISR), chewing efficiency [quantitative (VoH) and subjective (SA) assessments], peri-implant marginal bone levels (PI-MBL), maximum bite force (MBF), and patient-reported outcomes [oral health impact profile (OHIP-EDENT), and denture satisfaction index (DSI)]. Outcomes were recorded at baseline (BL), two weeks (T 0), 6 months (T 1), and at 1 year (T 2) after the intervention. Intra-and inter-group analyses were performed using regression models with ⍺=0.05. Results: 38 participants completed the T 2 visit (CG: n = 19, age = 74.7 ± 7.8 years; EG: n = 19, age = 70.3 ± 10.7 years). At T 2 , there was no implant loss in either of the groups (ISR = 100%). There were no significant differences between the groups for the PI-MBL changes (p = .754). Improvements occurred faster in the EG than in the CG, but over the observation time, there were no differences between the trial groups for VoH, MBF, OHIP-EDENT, and the DSI, except for SA being significantly better in the EG group (p = .022). Conclusions: The results of this RCT confirm that mandibular 2-IODs with a CAD-CAM milled bar with long distal extensions are not an inferior treatment to the conventional IODs on retentive anchors in the short term (1 year).

show abstract

“…The results of a study by Elsyad et al . [ 12 ] recommended the use of the 7 mm cantilevered bars in two implants-supported mandibular overdentures as it demonstrated the lowest magnitude of strains with no significant differences between peri-implant sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of cantilever length on stress distribution around implants in mandibular overdentures supported by two and three implants

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:There is no definitive study comparing stress distribution around two versus three implants in implant-retained overdentures with different cantilever length. The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate stress pattern around the implants of the 2 or 3 implant- supported mandibular overdenture with different cantilevered length.Materials and Methods:The models used in this study were 2 and 3 implant-supported overdenture with bar and clip attachment system on an edentulous mandibular arch. Each model was modified according to cantilever length (0 mm, 7 mm, and 13 mm); thus, 6 models were obtained. The vertical load of 15 and 30 pounds were applied unilaterally to the first molar and 15 pounds to the first premolar, and the stress in bone was analyzed.Results:With increasing cantilever length, no similar stress pattern changes were observed in different areas, but in most instances, an increase in cantilever length did not increase the stress around the implant adjacent to cantilever.Conclusions:Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that increasing of cantilever length in mandibular overdentures retained by 2–3 implants did not cause distinct increasing in stress, especially around the implant adjacent to cantilever, it may be helpful to use cantilever in cases of mandibular overdenture supported by splinted implants with insufficient retention and stability. Based on the findings of this study, optimal cantilever length in mandibular overdenture cannot be determined.

show abstract

Experimental and Numeric Stress Analysis of Titanium and Zirconia One-Piece Dental Implants

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Strains around distally inclined implants retaining mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments: anin vitrostudy

Strains around distally inclined implants retaining mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments: anin vitrostudy

Mandibular two‐implant overdentures with CAD‐CAM milled bars with distal extensions or retentive anchors: A randomized controlled trial

Effect of cantilever length on stress distribution around implants in mandibular overdentures supported by two and three implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About