Cargando…
A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional
This study aimed at performing a comparative analysis of the fracture resistance of implants, evaluating extra-narrow, narrow, and regular implants. Four groups containing 15 implants each were evaluated. Group 1 (G1): single-piece extra-narrow implants; Group 2 (G2): single-piece narrow implants; G...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32316409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13081888 |
_version_ | 1783532249583452160 |
---|---|
author | Tuzzolo Neto, Henrique Tuzita, Alessandra Sayuri Gehrke, Sérgio Alexandre de Vasconcellos Moura, Renata Zaffalon Casati, Márcio Mikail Melo Mesquita, Alfredo |
author_facet | Tuzzolo Neto, Henrique Tuzita, Alessandra Sayuri Gehrke, Sérgio Alexandre de Vasconcellos Moura, Renata Zaffalon Casati, Márcio Mikail Melo Mesquita, Alfredo |
author_sort | Tuzzolo Neto, Henrique |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study aimed at performing a comparative analysis of the fracture resistance of implants, evaluating extra-narrow, narrow, and regular implants. Four groups containing 15 implants each were evaluated. Group 1 (G1): single-piece extra-narrow implants; Group 2 (G2): single-piece narrow implants; Group 3 (G3): Morse taper narrow implants with solid abutments; Group 4 (G4): Morse taper conventional implants with solid abutments. The implants were tested using a universal testing machine for their maximum force limit and their maximum bending moment. After obtaining the data, the Shapiro–Wilk, ANOVA, and Tukey (p < 0.05) statistical tests were applied. Samples from all the groups were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and Groups 3 and 4 were analyzed by profilometry. The means and the standard deviation values for the maximum force limit (N) and the maximum bending moment (Nmm) were respectively: G1:134.29 N (10.27); G2:300.61 N (24.26); G3:360.64 N (23.34); G4:419.10 N (18.87); G1:1612.02 Nmm (100.6); G2:2945 Nmm (237.97); G3:3530.38 Nmm (228.75); G4:4096.7 Nmm (182.73). The groups behaved statistically different from each other, showing that the smallest diameter implants provided less fracture resistance, both in the tensile strength tests and in the maximum bending moment between all groups. Furthermore, single-piece implants, with 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm diameters, deformed in the implant body region area, rather than in the abutment region. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7215707 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72157072020-05-22 A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional Tuzzolo Neto, Henrique Tuzita, Alessandra Sayuri Gehrke, Sérgio Alexandre de Vasconcellos Moura, Renata Zaffalon Casati, Márcio Mikail Melo Mesquita, Alfredo Materials (Basel) Article This study aimed at performing a comparative analysis of the fracture resistance of implants, evaluating extra-narrow, narrow, and regular implants. Four groups containing 15 implants each were evaluated. Group 1 (G1): single-piece extra-narrow implants; Group 2 (G2): single-piece narrow implants; Group 3 (G3): Morse taper narrow implants with solid abutments; Group 4 (G4): Morse taper conventional implants with solid abutments. The implants were tested using a universal testing machine for their maximum force limit and their maximum bending moment. After obtaining the data, the Shapiro–Wilk, ANOVA, and Tukey (p < 0.05) statistical tests were applied. Samples from all the groups were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and Groups 3 and 4 were analyzed by profilometry. The means and the standard deviation values for the maximum force limit (N) and the maximum bending moment (Nmm) were respectively: G1:134.29 N (10.27); G2:300.61 N (24.26); G3:360.64 N (23.34); G4:419.10 N (18.87); G1:1612.02 Nmm (100.6); G2:2945 Nmm (237.97); G3:3530.38 Nmm (228.75); G4:4096.7 Nmm (182.73). The groups behaved statistically different from each other, showing that the smallest diameter implants provided less fracture resistance, both in the tensile strength tests and in the maximum bending moment between all groups. Furthermore, single-piece implants, with 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm diameters, deformed in the implant body region area, rather than in the abutment region. MDPI 2020-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7215707/ /pubmed/32316409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13081888 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Tuzzolo Neto, Henrique Tuzita, Alessandra Sayuri Gehrke, Sérgio Alexandre de Vasconcellos Moura, Renata Zaffalon Casati, Márcio Mikail Melo Mesquita, Alfredo A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional |
title | A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional |
title_full | A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional |
title_fullStr | A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional |
title_short | A Comparative Analysis of Implants Presenting Different Diameters: Extra-Narrow, Narrow and Conventional |
title_sort | comparative analysis of implants presenting different diameters: extra-narrow, narrow and conventional |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32316409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13081888 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tuzzolonetohenrique acomparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT tuzitaalessandrasayuri acomparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT gehrkesergioalexandre acomparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT devasconcellosmourarenata acomparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT zaffaloncasatimarcio acomparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT mikailmelomesquitaalfredo acomparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT tuzzolonetohenrique comparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT tuzitaalessandrasayuri comparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT gehrkesergioalexandre comparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT devasconcellosmourarenata comparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT zaffaloncasatimarcio comparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional AT mikailmelomesquitaalfredo comparativeanalysisofimplantspresentingdifferentdiametersextranarrownarrowandconventional |