Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant–abutment interface☆,☆☆,★,★★,♢,♢♢
Section snippets
Material and methods
This study used a measure of joint opening to evaluate the dynamic fatigue of the screw joint interface as a function of 3 different screw preloads. Five identical frameworks were fabricated by duplicating a milled aluminum template in acrylic resin. A hexed gold alloy UCLA-type cylinder (Cat. No. GUCH1, 3i Implant Innovations, West Palm Beach, Fla.) was incorporated into each pattern. Acrylic resin patterns (GC Pattern Resin, G-C Dental Industrial Corp, Tokyo, Japan) were individually sprued
Results
Strain gauge calibration data before and after each test sequence demonstrated a linear response (r2 = 0.9826 to 0.9986). A paired t test of the calibration slopes demonstrated a stable gauge response over the range of variables evaluated in this study (P=.0825, t=1.871, df=14). Therefore, an average of the calibration slopes before and after testing was calculated and used as the conversion factor for each of the 15 test sequences. This factor converted the millivolt output from the strain
Discussion
The innovative and unique measurement method used in this study allowed quantitative measurement of the stability of the joint interface over time. The positioning of the liquid metal strain gauge at a distance away from the screw joint avoided any alteration to the interface. The measurement of 9 to 17 μm mean micromotion demonstrated the sensitivity of the measurement technique.
Although the results of this study suggest that a preload as low as 16 N·cm may provide acceptable joint performance
Conclusions
Under the parameters of this study and from the resulting data collected, the following conclusions were drawn concerning micromotion at the dental implant–abutment interface:
The micromotion of the implant–abutment–abutment screw interface remained constant through 100,000 cycles for the 16, 32, and 48 N·cm preload groups, thus indicating that no fatigue of the screw joint interface occurred.
Dental implant screw joints utilizing screws that were undertightened (inadequate preload) exhibited
Supplementary Files
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Todd Fridrich, CDT, for his dental laboratory support and Anneliese Heiner, PhD, for her expertise with the MTS universal testing machine.
References (28)
Modified single and short-span restorations supported by osseointegrated fixtures in the partially edentulous jaw
J Prosthet Dent
(1986)- et al.
A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment
J Dent
(1993) - et al.
Branemark single tooth implants: a preliminary report of 76 implants
J Prosthet Dent
(1995) - et al.
Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs
J Prosthet Dent
(1995) - et al.
Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants
J Prosthet Dent
(1994) - et al.
Preventing loosening of implant abutment screws
J Prosthet Dent
(1996) - et al.
Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry
J Prosthet Dent
(1997) - et al.
3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Branemark
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
(1990) - et al.
Effect of preload torque on the ultimate tensile strength of implant prosthetic retaining screws
Implant Dent
(1994) - et al.
Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
(1991)
Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: progress report from a multicenter prospective study after 3 years
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
The role of screws in implant systems
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
Mandibular deformation in subjects with osseointegrated implants
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
Torque generated by handheld screwdrivers and mechanical torquing devices for osseointegrated implants
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
Cited by (166)
Fatigue properties of plasma nitriding for dental implant application
2024, Journal of Prosthetic DentistryCan patients detect peri‑implant mucosal inflammation? Results from a multicentre randomized trial
2023, Journal of DentistryFatigue bond strength of dental adhesive systems: Historical background of test methodology, clinical considerations and future perspectives
2022, Japanese Dental Science ReviewEffects of tightening torque on screw stress and formation of implant-abutment microgaps: A finite element analysis
2022, Journal of Prosthetic DentistryEvidence-Based Criteria for an Ideal Abutment Implant Connection—A Narrative Review
2022, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryDisplacement and performance of abutments in narrow-diameter implants with different internal connections
2022, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
- ☆
Based on a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in Prosthodontics in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa.
- ☆☆
Supported in part by a Stanley D. Tylman Research Grant, 3i Implant Innovations, and The University of Iowa College of Dentistry.
- ★
aAssistant Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario.
- ★★
bProfessor, Department Executive, and Graduate Director, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, The University of Iowa.
- ♢
cAssociate Professor, Dows Institute for Dental Research and Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, The University of Iowa.
- ♢♢
Reprint requests to: Dr David G. Gratton Division of Prosthodontics School of Dentistry The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario N6A 5C1 CANADA Fax: (519)661-3416 E-mail: [email protected]