Strain of implants depending on occlusion types in mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses.
- Author:
Byoung Sup SOHN
1
;
Seong Joo HEO
;
Jai Young KOAK
;
Seong Kyun KIM
;
Su Young LEE
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Strain; MTS machine; Implant-supported fixed prosthesis; Occlusion type
- MeSH: Mastication; Prostheses and Implants; Sprains and Strains
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2011;3(1):1-9
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: This study investigated the strain of implants using a chewing simulator with strain gauges in mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses under various dynamic loads. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three implant-supported 5-unit fixed prostheses were fabricated with three different occlusion types (Group I: Canine protected occlusion, Group II: Unilaterally balanced occlusion, Group III: Bilaterally balanced occlusion). Two strain gauges were attached to each implant abutment. The programmed dynamic loads (0 - 300 N) were applied using a chewing simulator (MTS 858 Mini Bionix II systems, MTS systems corp., Minn, USA) and the strains were monitored. The statistical analyses were performed using the paired t-test and the ANOVA. RESULTS: The mean strain values (MSV) for the working sides were 151.83 microepsilon, 176.23 microepsilon, and 131.07 microepsilon for Group I, Group II, and Group III, respectively. There was a significant difference between Group II and Group III (P < .05). Also, the MSV for non-working side were 58.29 microepsilon, 72.64 microepsilon, and 98.93 microepsilon for Group I, Group II, and Group III, respectively. One was significantly different from the others with a 95% confidence interval (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The MSV for the working side of Groups I and II were significantly different from that for the non-working side (Group I: t = 7.58, Group II: t = 6.25). The MSV for the working side of Group II showed significantly larger than that of Group III (P < .01). Lastly, the MSV for the non-working side of Group III showed significantly larger than those of Group I or Group II (P < .01).
