White Rose University Consortium logo
University of Leeds logo University of Sheffield logo York University logo

The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: A comparative laboratory study

Allum, S.R., Tomlinson, R.A. and Joshi, R. (2008) The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: A comparative laboratory study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 19 (6). pp. 553-559. ISSN 0905-7161

Full text available as:
[img] Text
3Tomlinson.pdf

Download (225Kb)

Abstract

Objectives: While caution in the use of small-diameter (≤3.5 mm) implants has been advocated in view of an increased risk of fatigue fracture under clinical loading conditions, a variety of implant designs with diameters <3 mm are currently offered in the market for reconstructions including fixed restorations. There is an absence of reported laboratory studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate clinical efficacy for implant designs with small diameters. This laboratory study aimed to provide comparative data on the mechanical performance of a number of narrow commercially marketed implants. Materials and methods: Implants of varying designs were investigated under a standardized test set-up similar to that recommended for standardized ISO laboratory testing. Implant assemblies were mounted in acrylic blocks supporting laboratory cast crowns and subjected to 30° off-axis loading on an LRX Tensometer. Continuous output data were collected using Nexygen software. Results: Load/displacement curves demonstrated good grouping of samples for each design with elastic deformation up to a point of failure approximating the maximum load value for each sample. The maximum loads for Straumann (control) implants were 989 N (±107 N) for the 4.1 mm RN design, and 619 N (±50 N) for the 3.3 mm RN implant (an implant known to have a risk of fracture in clinical use). Values for mini implants were recorded as 261 N (±31 N) for the HiTec 2.4 mm implant, 237 N (±37 N) for the Osteocare 2.8 mm mini and 147 N (±25 N) for the Osteocare mini design. Other implant designs were also tested. Conclusions: The diameters of the commercially available implants tested demonstrated a major impact on their ability to withstand load, with those below 3 mm diameter yielding results significantly below a value representing a risk of fracture in clinical practice. The results therefore advocate caution when considering the applicability of implants ≤3 mm diameter. Standardized fatigue testing is recommended for all commercially available implants.

Item Type: Article
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: Copyright (c) 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. This is an author produced version of a paper published in ' Clinical Oral Implants Research '. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
Keywords: Dental Design Diameter Failure Fatigue Fracture Implants Mini Overload article classification comparative study dental care dental surgery equipment instrumentation mechanical stress tooth implantation weight bearing Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants Dental Restoration Failure Dental Stress Analysis Equipment Failure Analysis Stress, Mechanical Weight-Bearing
Institution: The University of Sheffield
Academic Units: The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Engineering (Sheffield) > Department of Mechanical Engineering (Sheffield)
Depositing User: Mr Christopher Hardwick
Date Deposited: 21 Aug 2009 10:24
Last Modified: 08 Feb 2013 16:58
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01395.x
Status: Published
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Refereed: Yes
Identification Number: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01395.x
URI: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/9199

Actions (repository staff only: login required)