Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant among implant overdenture bars with various levels of misfit.

PURPOSE To measure and compare strains transferred to a bone simulant by screw-fastening implant overdenture bars with various levels of fit or misfit. MATERIALS AND METHODS Photoelastic resin was cast directly to two 3.75 X 13-mm Branemark fixtures (Nobelpharma USA Inc, Chicago, IL) situated 20 mm apart in a silicone mold of an edentulous mandible. Two strain-gauge rosettes were also incorporated in the resin to allow precise determination of principal stresses at two locations. Four groups of three overdenture bars with 0-, 180-, 360-, and 500-micrometer vertical gaps were fabricated. These bars were sequentially secured to the abutments with gold slot screws tightened to 10 N-cm. Strain indicator readings were recorded at a standardized time following the initial fastening of each bar. The test was repeated three times for each overdenture bar. RESULTS Mean principal stresses and strains at the location of the rosettes were determined. The magnitude of these stresses and strains increased significantly with each increase in gap size. Strains were several times larger mesial to the fixture than they were distal. CONCLUSIONS Strains are transferred to the bone when misfitting prostheses were secured. Some of the strains mesial to the fixture appeared to be unfavorable for regions of lower bone density when the groups with designed gaps were secured. These data will be compared with those in ongoing animal studies regarding the cellular response to prosthesis misfit.

[1]  H. Frost,et al.  Wolff's Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  A B Carr,et al.  Full-arch implant framework casting accuracy: preliminary in vitro observation for in vivo testing. , 1993, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[3]  R. Markin,et al.  Treatment of mammalian bite wounds of the maxillofacial region. , 1993, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[4]  A. Gilat,et al.  A photoelastic and strain gauge analysis of angled abutments for an implant system. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  H. Frost,et al.  Perspectives: bone's mechanical usage windows. , 1992, Bone and mineral.

[6]  A. Carr,et al.  Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. , 1992, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  T. Jemt Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. , 1992, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  A Schmitt,et al.  The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  David B. Burr,et al.  Structure, Function, and Adaptation of Compact Bone , 1989 .

[10]  U Benzing,et al.  Complete dentures fixed on dental implants: chewing patterns and implant stress. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  B Rangert,et al.  Forces and moments on Branemark implants. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  R Skalak,et al.  Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  T Kitagami,et al.  Analysis of stress on a fixed partial denture with a blade-vent implant abutment. , 1978, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.