These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Photoelastic stress analysis of implant-tooth connected prostheses with segmented and nonsegmented abutments.
    Author: Ochiai KT, Ozawa S, Caputo AA, Nishimura RD.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2003 May; 89(5):495-502. PubMed ID: 12806328.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There is some question about whether implant abutment selection affects the transfer of load between connected implants and natural teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare stress transfer patterns with either 1 or 2 posterior implants connected to a single anteriorly located simulated natural tooth with either 1 or 2 segmented and nonsegmented implant abutments under relevant functional loads by use of the photoelastic stress analysis technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A model of a human left mandible, edentulous posterior to the first premolar, with two 3.75-mm x 13-mm screw-type implants embedded within the edentulous area, was fabricated from photoelastic materials. The implants were in the first and second molar positions. Two fixed partial denture prosthetic restorations were fabricated with either segmented conical abutments or nonsegmented UCLA abutments. Vertical occlusal loads were applied at fixed locations on the restorations. The photoelastic stress fringes that developed in the supporting mandible were monitored visually and recorded photographically. The stress intensity (number of fringes), stress concentrations (closeness of fringes), and their locations were subjectively compared. RESULTS: Loading on the restoration over the simulated tooth generated apical stresses of similar intensity (fringe order) at the tooth and the first molar implant for both abutment types. Low-level stress was transferred to the second molar implant. Loading directed on the implant-supported region of the restoration demonstrated low transfer of stress to the simulated tooth. Nonvertical stress transfer with slightly higher intensity was observed for the nonsegmented abutment. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this simulation study, stress distribution and intensity for the 2 implant conditions was similar for segmented and nonsegmented abutment designs. Magnitude of stresses observed for both abutment designs was similar for the single implant condition. Vertical loading produced more nonaxial stresses away from the force applied for the 1 implant condition with the nonsegmented abutment. Direct loading results were similar for both abutment designs. Specific recommendations for selection of implant abutment and application should be based on clinical criteria.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]