PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

Dental implants have been utilized for many years to treat individuals with missing teeth. To optimize the long-term success rate of such implants, new designs, surfaces, and materials have been analyzed. It is important for the clinician to have a background in the field of implant surface design, to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of the available options, and to be aware of the alterations in surface structure that may occur following installation. This article provides a detailed review of the structure and the surface characteristics of dental implants, the modifications of implant surface, as well as the methods of evaluating implant surface structure. Moreover, it provides information concerning the structural changes that may take place at the time of dental implant placement. It is important for clinicians to be aware of such changes to plan and execute implant procedures with the highest possible success and implant survival rates.