Salah Eldin, N., Shalaby, Y., Nassif, M. (2019). STRAIN GAUGE ANALYSIS OF AXIAL AND OFF AXIAL LOADING ON IMPLANTS FOR REPLACING FIRST MANDIBULAR MOLAR (INVITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 44(3), 34-37. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63553
Noha M. Salah Eldin; Yousreya A. Shalaby; Mohammad S. Nassif. "STRAIN GAUGE ANALYSIS OF AXIAL AND OFF AXIAL LOADING ON IMPLANTS FOR REPLACING FIRST MANDIBULAR MOLAR (INVITRO STUDY)". Alexandria Dental Journal, 44, 3, 2019, 34-37. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63553
Salah Eldin, N., Shalaby, Y., Nassif, M. (2019). 'STRAIN GAUGE ANALYSIS OF AXIAL AND OFF AXIAL LOADING ON IMPLANTS FOR REPLACING FIRST MANDIBULAR MOLAR (INVITRO STUDY)', Alexandria Dental Journal, 44(3), pp. 34-37. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63553
Salah Eldin, N., Shalaby, Y., Nassif, M. STRAIN GAUGE ANALYSIS OF AXIAL AND OFF AXIAL LOADING ON IMPLANTS FOR REPLACING FIRST MANDIBULAR MOLAR (INVITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 2019; 44(3): 34-37. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63553
STRAIN GAUGE ANALYSIS OF AXIAL AND OFF AXIAL LOADING ON IMPLANTS FOR REPLACING FIRST MANDIBULAR MOLAR (INVITRO STUDY)
1Bachelor of Dentistry, BDS, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2Professor of Fixed prosthodontics, BDS, MSc, PhD, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
3Assistant Professor, Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical overload is thought to be one of the major causes of implant complications. It may induce loosening and fracture of the superstructure and/or implant components. Bone loss may also occur at the implant-bone interface. Increasing the diameter and length of the implant decreased the stress and strain on the alveolar crest, but diameter had a more significant effect than length to relieve the crestal stress and strain concentration. When the mesiodistal dimension is greater than 14 mm, using at least two implants to restore the region should be considered. When two implants replace the molar region, the mesiodistal offset loads to the prosthesis can be eliminated. OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the axial and off axial loading on implants of different diameters for replacing first mandibular molar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen epoxy resin blocks in which implants of different diameters were fixed. Specimens were divided into 3 parallel groups, 5 specimens each according to the implant diameter. Evaluation of the strain distribution around the implants under vertical axial and off axial loading using the strain gauge was done. RESULTS: The total microstrain mean value of the double implants was significantly less than the 6mm wide implant and the 4.7mm diameter implant. CONCLUSIONS: On using dental implants for replacing mandibular first molar, double (3.75-3.75) mm diameter implants revealed reducing microstrains than 6-mm-diameter implant and 4.7 diameter implant and give wider support to the crown restoration leading to elimination of the mesiodistal cantilever.
Assunção WG, Barão VA, Tabata LF, Gomes EA, Delben JA, dos Santos PH. Biomechanics studies in dentistry: bioengineering applied in oral implantology.JCraniofac Surg. 2009;20:1173-7.
Desai SR, Karthikeyan I, Gaddale R. 3D finite element analysis of immediate loading of single wide versus double implants for replacing mandibular molar. J Indian SocPeriodontol. 2013;17:777-83.
Keaveny TM, Guo XE, Wachtel EF, McMahon TA, Hayes WC. Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains. J Biomech. 1994;27:1127-36.
Rangert B, Sullivan R. Preventing prosthetic overload induced by bending. Nobelpharma News. 1993;7:5.
Bahat O, Handelsman M. Use of Wide implants and double implants in the posterior jaw: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:379-86.
Brunski B. Biomaterials and biomechanics in dental implant design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3:85–97.
Reilly DT, Burstein AH. The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomech. 1975;8:393–405.
Belshi TJ, Hernandez RE, Pryszlak MC, Rangert B. A comparative study of one implants vs. two replacing a single molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:372–8.
Isidor F. Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:1–9.
Flanagan D. Fixed partial dentures and crowns supported by very small diameter dental implants in compromised sites. Implant Dent. 2008;17:182–91.
Misch CE, Bidez MW. A scientific rationale for dental implant design. In: Misch CE (ed). Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1999: 329–43.
Kong L, Sun Y, Hu K, Li D, Hou R, Yang J, et al. Bivariate evaluation of cylinder implant diameter and length: a threedimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 2008;17:286–93.
Seong WJ, Korioth TW, Hodges JS.Experimentally induced abutment strains in three types of single-molar implant restorations.J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:318-26.
Abreu CW, Nishioka RS, Balducci I, Consani RL. Straight and offset implant placement under axial and nonaxial loads in implant-supported prostheses: strain gauge analysis.J Prosthodont. 2012;21:535-9.
Bathe KJ. Finite Element Procedures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
Qian L, Todo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Effects of implant diameter, insertion depth, and loading angle on stress/strain fields in implant/jawbone systems: finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:877–66.
Chou H, Muftu S, Bozkaya D. Combined effects of implant insertion depth and alveolar bone quality on periimplant bone strain induced by a wide-diameter, short implant and a narrowdiameter, long implant. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104:293–300.
Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Implant prosthodontic management of partially edentulous patients missing posterior teeth: The Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:352-9.
Desai SR, Karthikeyan I, Singh R. Evaluation of Micromovements and Stresses around Single WideDiameter and Double Implants for Replacing Mandibular Molar: A Three-Dimensional FEA.ISRN Dent. 2012; 2012: 680587.
View on SCiNiTO
Top