Comparison of Peri-implant Strain on Loading, between Splinted, Nonsplinted, Cement-retained and Screw-retained Implant-supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study
Anu A Ali, Byju P Kurian, Jimmy George, Jinsa P Devassy, Lithiya S John, Saranya Ravikumar
Citation Information :
Ali AA, Kurian BP, George J, Devassy JP, John LS, Ravikumar S. Comparison of Peri-implant Strain on Loading, between Splinted, Nonsplinted, Cement-retained and Screw-retained Implant-supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study. 2024; 12 (2):77-83.
Background and objectives: The present in vitro study was done to measure and compare peri-implant strain generated by different types of prostheses, namely, cement-retained splinted, cement-retained nonsplinted, screw-retained splinted and screw-retained nonsplinted with the help of strain gauges in polyurethane mandibular model under loading.
Materials and methods: Implants were placed in two polyurethane mandibular models in first and second molar regions. Four different types of prostheses were made. Cement-retained splinted and cement-retained nonsplinted prostheses were fabricated on one model. Screw-retained splinted and screw-retained nonsplinted are fabricated on another model. Strain gauges are attached on the buccal and lingual sides of each implant. Metal jigs were fabricated for simultaneous load application during vertical and oblique loading. A static load of 400 N was applied to the central fossae region of both molars using the universal testing machine to test vertical loading. The load was applied at 30° to the crown to test oblique loading. For every model, a load was applied 15 times, and the peri-implant strain was recorded.
Results: On vertical loading, the mean peri-implant strain (±SD) generated was found to be highest in nonsplinted screw-retained (1211.50 ± 65.28 microstrains and 1009.1 ± 42.06 macrostrains) and least in splinted cement-retained (630.70 ± 31.98 microstrains and 519.60 ± 32.48 microstrains) in the first molar region and second molar region, respectively. On oblique loading, the mean peri-implant strain (±SD) generated was found to be highest in nonsplinted screw-retained (702.47 ± 31.47 microstrains and 565.00 ± 16.11 microstrains) and least in splinted cement-retained (396.33 ± 27.04 microstrains and 302.47 ± 36.19 microstrains) in both 1st and 2nd molars, respectively.
Conclusion: Splinted crowns produce less peri-implant strain when compared with nonsplinted crowns. Cement-retained prosthesis produces less strain when compared with screw-retained prosthesis. The least peri-implant strain was observed in splinted cement-retained crowns.
Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4(3):241–247. PMID: 2700747.
Vasconcellos LG, Nishioka RS, Vasconcellos LM, et al. Effect of axial loads on implant-supported partial fixed prostheses by strain gauge analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(6):610–615. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572011000600011.
Nissan J, Ghelfan O, Gross M, et al. Analysis of load transfer and stress distribution by splinted and unsplinted implant-supported fixed cemented restorations: Load transfer and stress by splinting and unsplinting. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37(9):658–662. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02096.x.
Rani I, Shetty J, Reddy V. A comparison of peri-implant strain generated by different types of implant supported prostheses. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17(2):142. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.203195.
Grossmann Y, Finger IM, Block MS. Indications for splinting implant restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63(11):1642–1652. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.149.
Hobkirk JA, Schwab J. Mandibular deformation in subjects with osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6(3):319–328. PMID: 1813399.
Rokni S, Todescan R, Watson P, et al. An assessment of crown-to-root ratios with short sintered porous-surfaced implants supporting prostheses in partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20(1):69–76. PMID: 15747676.
Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 2006;201(8):501–507. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157.
Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Givani A, et al. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: A 10-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implant 2012;5(4):355–364. PMID: 23304689.
Chee W, Jivraj S. Failures in implant dentistry. Br Dent J 2007;202(3): 123–129. DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2007.74.
Hussien ANM, Rayyan MM, Sayed NM, et al. Effect of screw-access channels on the fracture resistance of 3 types of ceramic implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(2):214–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.016.
Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Traini T, et al. Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw- versus cement-retained porcelain fused to metal single crowns: SEM fractographic analysis. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):296–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.013.
Al-Omari WM, Shadid R, Abu-Naba'a L, et al. Porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained, cement-retained, and screw-cement-retained implant-supported metal ceramic posterior crowns. J Prosthodont 2010;19(4):263–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00560.x.
Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, et al. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(5):1102–1107. PMID: 22010095.
Assenza B, Scarano A, Leghissa G, et al. Screw vs cement-implant-retained restorations: An experimental study in the Beagle. Part 1. Screw and abutment loosening. J Oral Implantol 2005;31(5):242–246. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2005)31[242:SVCRAE]2.0.CO;2.
