Cargando…
A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To find out and compare peri implant strain developed in four different types of implant supported prostheses i.e., cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted, screw retained splinted, screw retained non splinted. METHODOLOGY: Four implant analogues were placed in a p...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450884/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28584415 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.203195 |
_version_ | 1783240073163046912 |
---|---|
author | Rani, Ipsha Shetty, Jayakar Reddy, Vahini |
author_facet | Rani, Ipsha Shetty, Jayakar Reddy, Vahini |
author_sort | Rani, Ipsha |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To find out and compare peri implant strain developed in four different types of implant supported prostheses i.e., cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted, screw retained splinted, screw retained non splinted. METHODOLOGY: Four implant analogues were placed in a polyurethane mandibular model at the position of left and right first and second molar. Abutments were fixed to the implant at a torque of 25Ncm. Two such models were made. Four different prostheses were placed on abutment of each model i.e screw retained splinted, screw retained nonsplinted, cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted. Four strain gauges were attached on the model, two on the buccal and two on the lingual aspect of each implant. Static load of 400N was applied on the prosthesis using universal testing machine. Load application was done ten times for each model and peri implant strain was measured. RESULTS: The mean peri implant strain (±SD) generated was found to be highest in non-splinted screw retained (1397.70 ± 44.47 microstrains and 1265.90 ± 42.76 microstrains) and least in splinted cement retained (630.70 ± 31.98 microstrains and 519.60 ± 32.48 microstrains) in both 1(st) and 2(nd) molars respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Splinted crowns produce less peri implant strain when compared to non splinted crowns. Cement retained prosthesis produce less peri implant strain when compared to screw retained prosthesis. Least strain was observed in cement retained splinted crowns. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5450884 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54508842018-04-01 A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses Rani, Ipsha Shetty, Jayakar Reddy, Vahini J Indian Prosthodont Soc Original Article AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To find out and compare peri implant strain developed in four different types of implant supported prostheses i.e., cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted, screw retained splinted, screw retained non splinted. METHODOLOGY: Four implant analogues were placed in a polyurethane mandibular model at the position of left and right first and second molar. Abutments were fixed to the implant at a torque of 25Ncm. Two such models were made. Four different prostheses were placed on abutment of each model i.e screw retained splinted, screw retained nonsplinted, cement retained splinted, cement retained non splinted. Four strain gauges were attached on the model, two on the buccal and two on the lingual aspect of each implant. Static load of 400N was applied on the prosthesis using universal testing machine. Load application was done ten times for each model and peri implant strain was measured. RESULTS: The mean peri implant strain (±SD) generated was found to be highest in non-splinted screw retained (1397.70 ± 44.47 microstrains and 1265.90 ± 42.76 microstrains) and least in splinted cement retained (630.70 ± 31.98 microstrains and 519.60 ± 32.48 microstrains) in both 1(st) and 2(nd) molars respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Splinted crowns produce less peri implant strain when compared to non splinted crowns. Cement retained prosthesis produce less peri implant strain when compared to screw retained prosthesis. Least strain was observed in cement retained splinted crowns. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5450884/ /pubmed/28584415 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.203195 Text en Copyright: © 2017 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Rani, Ipsha Shetty, Jayakar Reddy, Vahini A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
title | A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
title_full | A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
title_fullStr | A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
title_short | A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
title_sort | comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450884/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28584415 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.203195 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT raniipsha acomparisonofperiimplantstraingeneratedbydifferenttypesofimplantsupportedprostheses AT shettyjayakar acomparisonofperiimplantstraingeneratedbydifferenttypesofimplantsupportedprostheses AT reddyvahini acomparisonofperiimplantstraingeneratedbydifferenttypesofimplantsupportedprostheses AT raniipsha comparisonofperiimplantstraingeneratedbydifferenttypesofimplantsupportedprostheses AT shettyjayakar comparisonofperiimplantstraingeneratedbydifferenttypesofimplantsupportedprostheses AT reddyvahini comparisonofperiimplantstraingeneratedbydifferenttypesofimplantsupportedprostheses |