Straight and Offset Implant Placement under Axial and Nonaxial Loads in Implant‐Supported Prostheses: Strain Gauge Analysis

Abreu, Celina Wanderley de; Nishioka, Renato Sussumu; Balducci, Ivan

doi:10.1111/j.1532-849x.2012.00871.x

Cited by 16 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerning to the linear positioning of the strain gauges, this study is in agreement of the study conducted by Heckmann et al, 2004, among others, who studied the microstrain around the implants with 3-element superstructures [30,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. This position justifies the little variation found in the microstrain means of the non-axial loads executed by this present study, and the highest values were found in the points farthest from the implant e (A' and B').…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Strain Gauge analysis of non-axial loads in three-element implant-supported prostheses

Sousa¹,

Lelis²,

Santos³

et al. 2013

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated “in vitro”, the microstrain around three external hexagon implants linearly placed after static loadings on non-axial points of Co-Cr superstructures. The implants were inserted into a polyurethane block and their microunit prosthetic abutments were screwed with torque of 20 Ncm. Four strain gauges were linked to the block around the implants. Onto the abutments, Co-Cr superstructures (n = 5) were screwed with torque of 10 Ncm. The static vertical loads of 30 kg were applied for 10 s during 3 repetitions in four non-axial points located perpendicularly to the long axis (A and B) and another two points at the extremity of the superstructure (A` and B`). The data were recorded with the aid of a conditioner of electrical signals and the Strain-Smart software. The results obtained were submitted to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). It could be concluded that there were no significant differences in the effects of the applications of non-axial loads of this present study (p = 0.6464). Also, there were no differences between the displacement means, 3 mm for A and B; 5 mm for A’ and B’ (p = 0.8731). KeywordsBiomechanics, Dental implant, Dental prosthesis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Strain Gauge analysis of non-axial loads in three-element implant-supported prostheses

Sousa¹,

Lelis²,

Santos³

et al. 2013

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All the studies found were in vitro and computer simulations, and among them, five used 3D finite element analysis (FEA), five strain gauge analysis, one 3D geometric analysis, and one photoelastic stress analysis . No clinical study was found (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biomechanically, the concept of the buccal or lingual offset configuration implants was proposed to safely and effectively decrease the risk of occlusal overload in implant‐retained fixed partial prostheses in the posterior region and to reduce bending in the implants . This concept has been associated with improving the restoration's biomechanical stability, which could reduce the loosening or fracturing of screws and implants .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Offset Implant Configuration on Bone Stress Distribution: A Systematic Review

Batista

Santiago

Almeida

et al. 2014

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reported studies verifying the effects of offset placement include ones where implant bodies were embedded in rectangular experimental models [11–14], ones where rectangular bone models were constructed with FEA models [15, 16], and ones where FEA models were constructed from CT data on human mandibles [17, 18]. The artificial mandible models used in the present study were type II in the Lekholm and Zarb classification [24] and created using clinically valid estimates of bone quality, bone structure, and bone morphology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants in the edentulous posterior mandible

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProper implant placement is very important for long-term implant stability. Recently, numerous biomechanical studies have been conducted to clarify the relationship between implant placement and peri-implant stress. The placement of multiple implants in the edentulous posterior mandible has been studied by geometric analysis, three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA), model experimentation, etc. Offset placement is a technique that reduces peri-implant load. However, few studies have used multiple analyses to clarify the value of the offset placement under identical conditions.The present study aimed to clarify the biomechanical effects of offset placement on the peri-implant bone in edentulous posterior mandibles by comparative investigation using FEA and model experimentation with strain gauges.MethodsThree implants were embedded in an artificial mandible in the parts corresponding to the first premolar, the second premolar, and the first molar. A titanium superstructure was mounted to prepare models (experimental models). Three load points (buccal, central, and lingual) were established on the part of the superstructure corresponding to the first molar. Three types of experimental models, each with a different implant placement, were prepared. In one model, the implants were placed in a straight line; in the other two, the implants in the parts corresponding to the second premolar and the first molar were offset each by a 1-mm increment to the buccal or lingual side. Four strain gauges were applied to the peri-implant bone corresponding to the first molar.The experimental models were imaged by micro-computed tomography (CT), and FEA models were constructed from the CT data. A vertical load of 100 N was applied on the three load points in the experimental models and in the FEA models. The extent of compressed displacement and the strain in the peri-implant bone were compared between the experimental models and the FEA models.ResultsBoth experimental and FEA models suffered the least compressed displacement during central loading in all placements. The greatest stress and compressive strain was on the load side in all types of placements.ConclusionsOffset placement may not necessarily be more biomechanically effective than straight placement in edentulous posterior mandibles.

show abstract

Straight and Offset Implant Placement under Axial and Nonaxial Loads in Implant‐Supported Prostheses: Strain Gauge Analysis

Abstract: There was evidence that offset placement is capable of reducing the strain around an implant. In addition, the type of loading, axial force or nonaxial, did not have an influence until 2 mm.

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Strain Gauge analysis of non-axial loads in three-element implant-supported prostheses

Strain Gauge analysis of non-axial loads in three-element implant-supported prostheses

The Effect of Offset Implant Configuration on Bone Stress Distribution: A Systematic Review

Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants in the edentulous posterior mandible

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About