Influence of Different Screw Torque Levels on the Biomechanical Behavior of Tapered Prosthetic Abutments.

PURPOSE: To study the force used for tightening tapered one-piece prosthetic abutments and their influence on the removal torque value and stress level of the prosthetic abutment after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen implants and prosthetic abutments were divided into two groups (n = 7): G1, 20 Ncm; and G2, 32 Ncm (manufacturer recommended). A 20-mm T-shaped horizontal bar was adapted to the abutments. A 12-Hz cyclic loading was applied to the specimens in an electrodynamic testing system with the maximum number of cycles set to 106. Specimens were inclined by 15 degrees from the vertical axis, and a 5-mm off-center vertical load was applied to generate a combination of bending and torquing moments on the tapered connections. Progressive loads (from 164.85 to 362.85 N) were applied when the previous sample survived 106 cycles. The paired t test compared the screw removal torque with the initial tightening torque for each group (α = .05). A finite element analysis (FEA) of the mechanical testing analyzed the regions of stress concentration. RESULTS: No specimens failed after 106 cyclic loadings. The mean screw removal torque for both groups was similar to the initial abutment torque value applied for each group (G1, 20.36 ± 8.73 Ncm; and G2, 35.61 ± 6.99 Ncm) (P > .05). FEA showed similar stress behavior for both groups in the study despite the different simulated screw preloads (G1: 200 N; G2: 320 N). The coronal region of the implant body presented the highest strain values in both groups. CONCLUSION: Tightening tapered one-piece prosthetic abutments at 20 and 32 Ncm maintains a stable connection after cyclic loading. The stresses generated by the different tightening forces during cyclic loading are highest at the coronal level of the connection.

Strain transfer behavior of different planning options for mandibular single-molar replacement.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The loss of the first molar and second premolar could lead to mesial movement of the second molar, thus limiting the restoration space for the 2 missing teeth. Placement of a larger first molar is a common choice, but the best implant number and position option remain controversial. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to test different planning options for replacing the mandibular first molar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two polyoxymethylene models simulated first molar edentulous spaces of 11 mm (conventional size first molar: control group) and 14 mm (enlarged first molar: all remaining groups other than control). Models included acrylic resin replicas of a first and second premolar, a second molar, and the first molar edentulous space. The following groups were established: control (CO), ø3.5-mm center implant; center implant (CI), ø3.5 mm; mesial implant (MI), ø3.5 mm; distal implant (DI), ø3.5 mm; center implant (WI), ø5.0; 2 implants (2I), 2 ø3.5-mm implants. Three Co-Cr molar crowns were fabricated for each group by using a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technique. Model surface strains under a 250-N first molar load were calculated by 3-dimensional digital image correlation. Three regions of interest below the first molar were selected for comparison among groups. A test for unequal variances and a follow-up Welch ANOVA were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). RESULTS: The highest strains were found when the first molar was restored by using a 5.0-mm-wide implant (P<.05). Region of interest 1 showed that two 3.5-mm implants replacing the lost molar showed strain distribution similar to that of only one 3.5-mm implant (P>.05). Mesial and distal placement of the implant showed more neutral strain results than other restoration options (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Two small-diameter implants in an increased edentulous space show more optimized surface strain behavior than a single wide-diameter implant. However, a single 3.5-mm implant also showed reduced strains in the restoration of the same edentulous space.