Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of two full-arch rehabilitations supported by four or five implants

Luca Francetti, Nicolo Cavalli, Tomaso Villa, Luigi La Barbera, Silvio Taschieri, Stefano Corbella, Massimo Del Fabbro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress pattern on the abutments in two different full-arch implant-supported clinically equivalent prosthetic rehabilitations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two steel master casts were created and titanium implants were inserted in two different configurations. One configuration used four implants, with the distal implants tilted 30 degrees (4IMP configuration), and the other used five axially inclined implants (5IMP configuration). A straight multiunit abutment (MUA) was connected to every axial implant and a 30-degree angulated MUA was connected to each tilted implant. One titanium framework was fabricated for each configuration, with a 5-mm (4IMP configuration) or a 15-mm (5IMP configuration) distal cantilever length. Six cycles of vertical loading between 20 and 200 N were applied unilaterally at the most distal point of the frameworks on both sides. Readings of the deformations at the abutment level were obtained with the use of linear strain gauges.

RESULTS: A similar pattern of deformation was seen in both configurations. The greatest compressive stress was measured by the strain gauge on the abutment closest to load application and was similar for the 4IMP and 5IMP configurations. The tensile stress measured on the same abutment was higher in the 5IMP configuration than in the 4IMP configuration. In terms of the distribution of stresses, the deformation measured on the central abutment in the 5IMP configuration was less than 10% of the overall stress in all the tested conditions.

CONCLUSION: There was no difference in strain between the two different designs, so the use of tilted implants with angulated abutments to reduce cantilever length could be considered a viable clinical option.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)419-426
Number of pages8
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Titanium
Rehabilitation
Steel
Reading
In Vitro Techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of two full-arch rehabilitations supported by four or five implants. / Francetti, Luca; Cavalli, Nicolo; Villa, Tomaso; La Barbera, Luigi; Taschieri, Silvio; Corbella, Stefano; Del Fabbro, Massimo.

In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, Vol. 30, No. 2, 01.03.2015, p. 419-426.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Francetti, Luca ; Cavalli, Nicolo ; Villa, Tomaso ; La Barbera, Luigi ; Taschieri, Silvio ; Corbella, Stefano ; Del Fabbro, Massimo. / Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of two full-arch rehabilitations supported by four or five implants. In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2015 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 419-426.
@article{a84400838f54417ca5e464f041aea992,
title = "Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of two full-arch rehabilitations supported by four or five implants",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress pattern on the abutments in two different full-arch implant-supported clinically equivalent prosthetic rehabilitations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two steel master casts were created and titanium implants were inserted in two different configurations. One configuration used four implants, with the distal implants tilted 30 degrees (4IMP configuration), and the other used five axially inclined implants (5IMP configuration). A straight multiunit abutment (MUA) was connected to every axial implant and a 30-degree angulated MUA was connected to each tilted implant. One titanium framework was fabricated for each configuration, with a 5-mm (4IMP configuration) or a 15-mm (5IMP configuration) distal cantilever length. Six cycles of vertical loading between 20 and 200 N were applied unilaterally at the most distal point of the frameworks on both sides. Readings of the deformations at the abutment level were obtained with the use of linear strain gauges.RESULTS: A similar pattern of deformation was seen in both configurations. The greatest compressive stress was measured by the strain gauge on the abutment closest to load application and was similar for the 4IMP and 5IMP configurations. The tensile stress measured on the same abutment was higher in the 5IMP configuration than in the 4IMP configuration. In terms of the distribution of stresses, the deformation measured on the central abutment in the 5IMP configuration was less than 10{\%} of the overall stress in all the tested conditions.CONCLUSION: There was no difference in strain between the two different designs, so the use of tilted implants with angulated abutments to reduce cantilever length could be considered a viable clinical option.",
author = "Luca Francetti and Nicolo Cavalli and Tomaso Villa and {La Barbera}, Luigi and Silvio Taschieri and Stefano Corbella and {Del Fabbro}, Massimo",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.3767",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "419--426",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of two full-arch rehabilitations supported by four or five implants

AU - Francetti, Luca

AU - Cavalli, Nicolo

AU - Villa, Tomaso

AU - La Barbera, Luigi

AU - Taschieri, Silvio

AU - Corbella, Stefano

AU - Del Fabbro, Massimo

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress pattern on the abutments in two different full-arch implant-supported clinically equivalent prosthetic rehabilitations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two steel master casts were created and titanium implants were inserted in two different configurations. One configuration used four implants, with the distal implants tilted 30 degrees (4IMP configuration), and the other used five axially inclined implants (5IMP configuration). A straight multiunit abutment (MUA) was connected to every axial implant and a 30-degree angulated MUA was connected to each tilted implant. One titanium framework was fabricated for each configuration, with a 5-mm (4IMP configuration) or a 15-mm (5IMP configuration) distal cantilever length. Six cycles of vertical loading between 20 and 200 N were applied unilaterally at the most distal point of the frameworks on both sides. Readings of the deformations at the abutment level were obtained with the use of linear strain gauges.RESULTS: A similar pattern of deformation was seen in both configurations. The greatest compressive stress was measured by the strain gauge on the abutment closest to load application and was similar for the 4IMP and 5IMP configurations. The tensile stress measured on the same abutment was higher in the 5IMP configuration than in the 4IMP configuration. In terms of the distribution of stresses, the deformation measured on the central abutment in the 5IMP configuration was less than 10% of the overall stress in all the tested conditions.CONCLUSION: There was no difference in strain between the two different designs, so the use of tilted implants with angulated abutments to reduce cantilever length could be considered a viable clinical option.

AB - PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress pattern on the abutments in two different full-arch implant-supported clinically equivalent prosthetic rehabilitations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two steel master casts were created and titanium implants were inserted in two different configurations. One configuration used four implants, with the distal implants tilted 30 degrees (4IMP configuration), and the other used five axially inclined implants (5IMP configuration). A straight multiunit abutment (MUA) was connected to every axial implant and a 30-degree angulated MUA was connected to each tilted implant. One titanium framework was fabricated for each configuration, with a 5-mm (4IMP configuration) or a 15-mm (5IMP configuration) distal cantilever length. Six cycles of vertical loading between 20 and 200 N were applied unilaterally at the most distal point of the frameworks on both sides. Readings of the deformations at the abutment level were obtained with the use of linear strain gauges.RESULTS: A similar pattern of deformation was seen in both configurations. The greatest compressive stress was measured by the strain gauge on the abutment closest to load application and was similar for the 4IMP and 5IMP configurations. The tensile stress measured on the same abutment was higher in the 5IMP configuration than in the 4IMP configuration. In terms of the distribution of stresses, the deformation measured on the central abutment in the 5IMP configuration was less than 10% of the overall stress in all the tested conditions.CONCLUSION: There was no difference in strain between the two different designs, so the use of tilted implants with angulated abutments to reduce cantilever length could be considered a viable clinical option.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953345168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953345168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.3767

DO - 10.11607/jomi.3767

M3 - Article

C2 - 25830403

AN - SCOPUS:84953345168

VL - 30

SP - 419

EP - 426

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 2

ER -