Stress and strain distributions on short implants with two different prosthetic connections – an in vitro and in silico analysis

Authors

  • João Paulo Mendes Tribst São Paulo State University (Unesp) – Institute of Science and Technology – São José dos Campos – Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics – SP – Brazil. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2627-8628
  • Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva São Paulo State University (Unesp) – Institute of Science and Technology – São José dos Campos – Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics – SP – Brazil. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-2053
  • Vinicius Anéas Rodrigues São Paulo State University (Unesp) – Institute of Science and Technology – São José dos Campos – Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics – SP – Brazil.
  • Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges São Paulo State University (Unesp) – Institute of Science and Technology – São José dos Campos – Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics – SP – Brazil. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5707-7565
  • Renato Sussumo Nishioka São Paulo State University (Unesp) – Institute of Science and Technology – São José dos Campos – Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics – SP – Brazil. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1458-601X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2017.v20i3.1433

Abstract

Objective: An ideal biomechanics minimizes the stress between implant and bone that can provide success for osseointegrated implants. This study evaluated the strain concentration in surrounding tissue and stress in the components of two implants with different prosthetic connections through an in vitro and in silico methods. Methods: Twenty  polyurethane blocks were divided into two groups (n=10) followed by the installation of internal hexagon (IH) (AS Technology – Titanium Fix, São José dos Campos, Brazil) or locking taper implants (LT) (Bicon Dental Implants). For strain gauge (SG) method, four sensors were placed around the implants. For finite element analysis (FEA), the same block was modeled and analyzed. An axial load (30 kgf) was applied for both methodologies.  The values of stress and strain were analyzed for correlation to SG. Results: For SG, LT presented a mean of strain most aggressive (-932) than IH (-632). For FEA, LT showed less stress (-547) then IH (-1169).  Conclusion:  For two implant’s system, microstrain values capable to induce unwanted bone remodeling were not measured.  However, for IH implant, the presence of a retention screw has the disadvantage to concentrate stress while a solid abutment dissipates the axial load through the implant that suggests a better performance for LT group.

 

Keywords: Finite elements analyses; Dental implant; Strain gauge. 

 

Downloads

Published

2017-09-26

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 3 (2017): Jul. - Sep. / 2017 - Published September 2017

Section

Clinical or Laboratorial Research Manuscript