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: Effect of engaging abutment position in implant-borne, screw-retained three-unit fixed cantilevered prostheses.
    Author: Dogus SM, Kurtz KS, Watanabe I, Griggs JA.
    Journal: J Prosthodont; 2011 Jul; 20(5):348-54. PubMed ID: 21585587.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of internally connected engaging component position in screw-retained fixed cantilevered prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were cast in high-palladium alloy in three groups. In group A, engaging components were incorporated into the units away from the cantilevered segment; proximal units received nonengaging components. In group B, these positions were reversed. Control specimens were fabricated using all nonengaging components. Specimens were attached to internally connected 3.5 (diameter) × 13 mm (length) implants, torqued to 32 Ncm, and embedded into epoxy resin. Specimens were tested in cyclic fatigue with a 2 Hz sine wave and 0.1 min/max load ratio. Load amplitude started at 1.8 N and increased by 1.8 N every 60 cycles until fracture. Log-rank statistic, ANOVA, Spearman's correlation, and LIFETEST procedures were used to evaluate level of statistical significance within the results. RESULTS: In the control group, the mean number of cycles to fracture was 31,205 ± 2639. Mean axial force at fracture was 932 ± 78 N. In group A, these numbers were 38,160 ± 4292 and 1138 ± 128 N, and in group B, 31,810 ± 3408 and 949 ± 101 N. Statistical significance levels for number of cycles to fracture were: Control versus group A, p = 0.0117, and groups A versus B, p = 0.0156 (statistically significant). Control versus group B, p = 0.357 (not statistically significant). Log-rank statistic for the survival curves is greater than would be expected by chance; there was a statistically significant difference between survival curves (p = 0.012). The location and mode of failure were noteworthy (always in the abutment screw). CONCLUSIONS: The position of the engaging component had significant effects on the results. Within the limitations of this investigation, it can be concluded that using an engaging abutment in a screw-retained fixed cantilevered FDP provides a mechanical advantage, and engaging the implant furthest from the cantilever when designing a screw-retained cantilever FDP increased resistance to fracture of the distal abutment screw.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]