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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tuzzolo Neto, Henrique, Tuzita, Alessandra Sayuri, Gehrke, Sérgio Alexandre, de Vasconcellos Moura, Renata, Zaffalon Casati, Márcio, Mikail Melo Mesquita, Alfredo
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