Abstract
Two-pieces dental implants must provide stability of the implant-abutment-interface. The connection type and platform diameter could influence the biomechanical resistance and stress distribution. This study aims to evaluate the fatigue for different types of connections, external and internal, and different platform diameters. Three implant designs with the same length were used: (a) external hexagon/narrow platform; (b) internal double hexagon/narrow platform; (c) internal octagon/regular platform. A fatigue test was developed to establish the number of cycles needed before fracture. A 30º oblique load with a sinusoidal function of fatigue at a frequency of 15 Hz and 10% stress variation was applied to each system. The fatigue load limit (FLL) for design (a) was 190 N, being the nominal-curvature-moment (NCM) = 1.045; FLL = 150 N, with a NCM = 0.825 for (b), and FLL = 325 N, with a NCM = 1.788 for (c). The platform diameter affects the FLL, obtaining lower FLL on a narrow platform. The connection type interferes with the implant walls’ width, especially in narrow implants, making internal connections more unstable at this level. Long-term clinical studies to assess the restoration’s success rate and survival are mandatory.
Highlights
Two-piece dental titanium implants have been widely used for single-tooth replacements up to full-arch rehabilitation [1]
Fifty-four titanium dental implants from three different implant systems were compared in this study
The minimum and maximum load expressed in Newtons (N) applied to all the samples of the double hexagon internal connection group was 150 N and 400 N, respectively
Summary
Two-piece dental titanium implants have been widely used for single-tooth replacements up to full-arch rehabilitation [1]. The implant-abutment-interface (IAI) [2] has to resist dynamic forces and be stable to withstand functional loads and to reduce screw loosing [3]. To maintain the stability of the IAI, different implant connection geometries have been developed, which can be summarized in two broad groups: external and internal connections. In the external connections, both the implant index and the prosthetic abutment index are located above the level of the implant platform. In the internal connections, both structures are located inside the implant’s body, below the level of the implant platform [4]. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8988; doi:10.3390/ijerph17238988 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International journal of environmental research and public health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
