The implant-supported telescopic prosthesis: a biomechanical analysis.

This in vitro project investigated load transfer through screw-retained telescopic prostheses. Three Brånemark System implants incorporating strain gauges were embedded in an aluminum block. Telescopic prostheses that included 1 mesial and 1 distal cantilever were fabricated over 1 central EsthetiCone and 2 Ti-Adapt abutments. The buffering capacity of the cement in a combined screw-retained/cemented prosthesis was studied. The degree of misfit of the prostheses could be adjusted by applying shims of various thicknesses under the EsthetiCone. Load distribution was measured while a 50-N load was applied in turn over each implant and each cantilever. The results showed that tightening the central prosthetic screw widened the load distribution. The cement accommodated misfits between the layers of the telescope, significantly reducing bending moments on some supporting implants. The system exhibited a degree of tolerance to misfit and can provide a versatile prosthodontic option.

[1]  T D Taylor,et al.  Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  J B Brunski,et al.  Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface. , 1992, Clinical materials.

[3]  T Jemt,et al.  In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  T. Jemt,et al.  Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

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

[6]  H. Preiskel,et al.  The DIA anatomic abutment system and telescopic prostheses: a clinical report. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  S. Glantz,et al.  On the influence of superstructure connection on implant preload: a methodological and clinical study. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  J B Brunski,et al.  Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  B Rangert,et al.  Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. , 1995, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  T W Korioth,et al.  Influence of mandibular superstructure shape on implant stresses during simulated posterior biting. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  T Jemt,et al.  Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  H. Preiskel,et al.  Telescopic prostheses for implants. , 1998, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[13]  S. Timoshenko,et al.  Mechanics of Materials, 3rd Ed. , 1991 .

[14]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  D M Davis,et al.  Studies on frameworks for osseointegrated prostheses: Part 2. The effect of adding acrylic resin or porcelain to form the occlusal superstructure. , 1988, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  G D Stafford,et al.  On clinical loading of osseointegrated implants. A methodological and clinical study. , 1993, Clinical oral implants research.