Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787696
Evaluation of Microstrain in the Regions Surrounding Morse Taper and External Hexagon Implants
Authors

Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to compare the Morse taper (MT) + titanium base (Ti-Base) abutment with the external hexagon (EH) + Ti-Base abutment by using the strain gauge method in the mesial, distal, and apical–buccal areas around these types of implants.
Materials and Methods This study investigated two groups, MT and EH, each comprising five polyurethane samples with a dental implant (3.75 × 11.5 mm) in the area of artificial tooth 15. The strain gauges were glued to the mesial, distal, and apical–buccal polyurethane areas of all samples in relation to the implant. Ti-Base nonangled abutments were installed on the implants in each group. Ten identical zirconia crowns were constructed by scanning and milling and were subsequently cemented onto the Ti-base abutments with calcium hydroxide cement. Then, an axial load of 100 N was applied to the occlusal region of the zirconia crowns, and strain gauge measurements were taken.
Statistical Analysis Strain gauge data were assessed by a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with “implant connection” and “strain gauge position” factors, followed by the Bonferroni test (p < 0.05).
Results The MT group showed significantly lower microstrain values in the mesial and apical strain gauges compared to the EH group.
Conclusion The MT group exhibited less microstrain in the mesial and apical areas of the polyurethane samples near the implant. Consequently, the MT connection was considered more biomechanically advantageous.
Keywords
strain gauge measurements - dental implant - external hexagon - morse taper - Ti-Base abutment - microstrainPublication History
Article published online:
16 July 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Semenzin Rodrigues A, de Moraes Melo Neto CL, Santos Januzzi M, Dos Santos DM, Goiato MC. Correlation between Periotest value and implant stability quotient: a systematic review. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2023; 69 (01) 1-10
- 2 Bittencourt AB, Rezende EO, Campaner M. et al. Stress distribution of multiple implant-supported prostheses: photoelastic and strain gauge analyses of external hexagon and morse taper connections. J Clin Exp Dent 2022; 14 (03) e235-e240
- 3 Elani HW, Starr JR, Da Silva JD, Gallucci GO. Trends in dental implant use in the U.S., 1999-2016, and projections to 2026. J Dent Res 2018; 97 (13) 1424-1430
- 4 Markets and Markets. Dental implants and prosthetics market [Internet]. Accesses May 29, 2024 at: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/dental-implants-prosthetics-market-695.html
- 5 Bittencourt ABBC, Neto CLMM, Penitente PA, Pellizzer EP, Dos Santos DM, Goiato MC. Comparison of the Morse cone connection with the internal hexagon and external hexagon connections based on microleakage: review. Prague Med Rep 2021; 122 (03) 181-190
- 6 Ellendula Y, Chandra Sekar A, Nalla S, Basany RB, Sailasri K, Thandu A. Biomechanical evaluation of stress distribution in equicrestal and sub-crestally placed, platform-switched morse taper dental implants in D3 bone: finite element analysis. Cureus 2022; 14 (04) e24591
- 7 Macedo JP, Pereira J, Vahey BR. et al. Morse taper dental implants and platform switching: the new paradigm in oral implantology. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (01) 148-154
- 8 Palacios-Garzón N, Velasco-Ortega E, López-López J. Bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal and crestal level: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (01) 154
- 9 Fernández-Domínguez M, Ortega-Asensio V, Fuentes-Numancia E. et al. Can the macrogeometry of dental implants influence guided bone regeneration in buccal bone defects? Histomorphometric and biomechanical analysis in beagle dogs. J Clin Med 2019; 8 (05) 618
- 10 Pereira J, Morsch CS, Henriques B. et al. Removal torque and biofilm accumulation at two dental implant-abutment joints after fatigue. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31 (04) 813-819
- 11 TP Bergamo E, Zahoui A, Luri Amorin Ikejiri L. et al. Retention of zirconia crowns to Ti-base abutments: effect of luting protocol, abutment treatment and autoclave sterilization. J Prosthodont Res 2021; 65 (02) 171-175
- 12 Al-Thobity AM. Titanium base abutments in implant prosthodontics: a literature review. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 49-55
- 13 Goiato MC, Tonella BP, Ribeiro PdoP, Ferraço R, Pellizzer EP. Methods used for assessing stresses in buccomaxillary prostheses: photoelasticity, finite element technique, and extensometry. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20 (02) 561-564
- 14 Okeson JP. Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion. 8th ed. St. Louis, MO:: Elsevier; 2019
- 15 Nishioka RS, Nishioka LN, Abreu CW, de Vasconcellos LG, Balducci I. Machined and plastic copings in three-element prostheses with different types of implant-abutment joints: a strain gauge comparative analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18 (03) 225-230
- 16 Sotto-Maior BS, Senna PM, da Silva-Neto JP, de Arruda Nóbilo MA, Del Bel Cury AA. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress around single short-wide implants: a photoelastic stress analysis. J Prosthodont 2015; 24 (01) 52-56
