Abstract
Objective: An ideal biomechanics minimizes the stress between implant and bone that can provide success for osseointegrated implants. This study evaluated the strain concentration in surrounding tissue and stress in the components of two implants with different prosthetic connections through an in vitro and in silico methods. Methods: Twenty polyurethane blocks were divided into two groups (n=10) followed by the installation of internal hexagon (IH) (AS Technology – Titanium Fix, São José dos Campos, Brazil) or locking taper implants (LT) (Bicon Dental Implants). For strain gauge (SG) method, four sensors were placed around the implants. For finite element analysis (FEA), the same block was modeled and analyzed. An axial load (30 kgf) was applied for both methodologies. The values of stress and strain were analyzed for correlation to SG. Results: For SG, LT presented a mean of strain most aggressive (-932) than IH (-632). For FEA, LT showed less stress (-547) then IH (-1169). Conclusion: For two implant’s system, microstrain values capable to induce unwanted bone remodeling were not measured. However, for IH implant, the presence of a retention screw has the disadvantage to concentrate stress while a solid abutment dissipates the axial load through the implant that suggests a better performance for LT group. Keywords: Finite elements analyses; Dental implant; Strain gauge.
Highlights
The advancement of implantology is owed to the success of osseointegration processes, it still presents assembling challenges [1,2,3]
When an implant-supported prosthesis is submitted to a certain load [6,7,8], it promotes bone remodeling [6,9]
The Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a good alternative to help on the understanding of stress generated in the masticatory system since 1970
Summary
The advancement of implantology is owed to the success of osseointegration processes, it still presents assembling challenges [1,2,3]. The knowledge of the masticatory mechanism forces on the system of prosthesis over implant is crucial for failure prevention [4,5,6]. From a biomechanical point of view, the connection between abutment and implant must minimize the stress generated at the implant/bone interface [10], avoiding fatiguepromoted micro strains and bone resorption [11]. Another factor that promotes overloading is the use of short implants, as the crown/implant correlation is unfavorable [12] and provides a larger vertical lever arm. Using a 2D model [6,13] and from the 80’s until today, 3D models [2,3,14] have been used to develop and improve this tool for the study of biomechanical behavior of prostheses and implants
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
