J Adv Prosthodont.  2012 Aug;4(3):158-161. 10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.158.

Mechanical analysis of conventional and small diameter conical implant abutments

• Moris IC
• Faria AC
• de Mattos
• Ribeiro RF
• Rodrigues

• KMID: 2176411
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.158

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of the present study was to evaluate if a smaller morse taper abutment has a negative effect on the fracture resistance of implant-abutment connections under oblique compressive loads compared to a conventional abutment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty morse taper conventional abutments (4.8 mm diameter) and smaller abutments (3.8 mm diameter) were tightened (20 Ncm) to their respective implants (3.5 x 11 mm) and after a 10 minute interval, implant/abutment assemblies were subjected to static compressive test, performed in a universal test machine with 1 mm/min displacement, at 45degrees inclination. The maximum deformation force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed by student t test.
RESULTS
Maximum deformation force of 4.8 mm and 3.8 mm abutments was approximately 95.33 kgf and 95.25 kgf, respectively, but no fractures were noted after mechanical test. Statistical analysis demonstrated that the evaluated abutments were statistically similar (P=.230).
CONCLUSION
Abutment measuring 3.8 mm in diameter (reduced) presented mechanical properties similar to 4.8 mm (conventional) abutments, enabling its clinical use as indicated.

Keyword

Dental Implants; Dental Implant Abutment Design; Morse Taper Dental Implant Abutment Connection; Compressive Strength

MeSH Terms

Benzeneacetamides
Collodion
Compressive Strength
Dental Implant-Abutment Design
Dental Implants
Displacement (Psychology)
Humans
Piperidones
Benzeneacetamides
Collodion
Dental Implants
Piperidones

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flex abutments: A-4.8 mm diameter; B-3.8 mm diameter.

• 

  Fig. 2 Implant/abutment set positioned for oblique compressive loading.

• 

  Fig. 3 Implant/abutment sets after mechanical test. A-4.8 mm abutment; B-3.8 mm abutment.

• 

  Fig. 4 Longitudinal section of implant/abutment sets before (A-4.8 mm and B-3.8 mm) and after (C-4.8 mm and D-3.8 mm) mechanical test.

Reference

1. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008. 19:1276–1284.

2. Bozkaya D, Müftü S. Mechanics of the taper integrated screwed-in (TIS) abutments used in dental implants. J Biomech. 2005. 38:87–97.

3. Coppedê AR, Bersani E, de Mattos Mda G, Rodrigues RC, Sartori IA, Ribeiro RF. Fracture resistance of the implant-abutment connection in implants with internal hex and internal conical connections under oblique compressive loading: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2009. 22:283–286.

4. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of a 1-piece and 2-piece conical abutment joint in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:458–464.

5. Reddy MS, O'Neal SJ, Haigh S, Aponte-Wesson R, Geurs NC. Initial clinical efficacy of 3-mm implants immediately placed into function in conditions of limited spacing. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008. 23:281–288.

6. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 88:604–610.

7. Weigl P. New prosthetic restorative features of Ankylos implant system. J Oral Implantol. 2004. 30:178–188.

8. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors - a comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:542–549.

9. Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 1998. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;44.