Download PDF
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2003; 112(11): 499-507
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-44564
Wissenschaft
Implantologie
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Spannungsentwicklung 5-gliedriger Implantatbrücken

Strain Development of implant Supported 5-unit FPDsM. Karl1 , W. Winter2 , F. Graef3 , M. G. Wichmann1 , S.M. Heckmann1
  • 1Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik
  • 2Lehrstuhl für Technische Mechanik
  • 3Institut für Angewandte Mathematik Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 June 2004 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Herstellungsweise und Befestigungsmechanismus beeinflussen den Sitz einer implantatgetragenen Suprakonstruktion. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, die Spannungsentwicklung verschiedener zementierbarer und verschraubbarer Implantatbrücken zu quantifizieren.

4 Gruppen 5-gliedriger Brücken auf zementierbaren und verschraubbaren Standardabutments wurden untersucht.

3 ITI-Implantate wurden in Anlehnung an eine reale Patientensituation in ein Messmodell eingearbeitet und Dehnungsmessstreifen mesial und distal der Implantate und an den Brückenzwischengliedern angebracht. Während des Verschraubens respektive Zementierens der Restaurationen wurden die entstehenden Spannungen erfasst. Alle untersuchten Brücken zeigten messbare Dehnungen, wobei kein signifikanter Unterschied zwischen verschraubten und zementierten Brücken nachzuweisen war. Auch zeigten die unterschiedlichen Herstellungsarten für verschraubte Brückenkonstruktionen keinen signifikanten Unterschied. Die geringsten Spannungswerte lagen bei denjenigen Brücken vor, die direkt auf dem Messmodell an vorgefertigte Goldzylinder verklebt wurden.

Summary

Fabrication and retention methods have an influence on the passivity of superstructure fit. The objective of the study presented was to quantify the strain development of various cemented and screw retained FPDs. 4 groups of 5-unit FPDs with 10 samples each, representing the commonly used cemented and screw retained FPD-types, were investigated. 3 ITI implants were anchored in a measurement model according to a real life patient situation. Strain gauges were mounted mesially and distally to the implants and on the bridge pontics. During cement setting and screw fixation, the developing strains were recorded. For statistical analysis, multivariate 2 sample tests were performed setting the level of significance at p = 0.1. All types of FPDs revealed a considerable amount of strain with no significant difference between cement and screw retention. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the conventional fabrication modes for screw retained FPDs. The lowest strains were found in bridges bonded onto gold cylinders. As bonding of superstructures directly onto implant components compensates impression and laboratory inaccuracies, restorations with best possible passive fit can result. Before recommending this technique, investigations on the long term stability of the adhesive layer should be temporized.

Schlüsselwörter

Adhäsives Befestigen - passive fit - Spannungsentwicklung - Passgenauigkeit - Zementieren - Verschrauben

Key Words

Adhesive Fixation - Passive Fit - Strain Development - Superstructure Accuracy - Cement Retention - Screw Retention

Literatur

  • 1 Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 216-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Assif D, Nissan J, Varsano I, Singer A. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: Effect of splinting material.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 885-888
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Burawi G, Houston F, Byrne D, Claffey N. A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the Bone-Lock implant system.  J Prosthet Dent. 1997;  77 68-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;  6 448-455
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;  7 468-475
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Carr AB, Brunski JB, Hurley E. Effects of fabrication, finishing and polishing procedures on preload in prostheses using conventional „gold” and plastic cylinders.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 589-598
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chee W, Felton A D, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better?.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 137-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cheshire PD, Hobkirk JA. An in vivo quantitative analysis of the fit of Nobel Biocare implant superstructures.  J Oral Rehabil. 1996;  23 782-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Clelland NL, Papazoglou E, Carr AB, Gilat A. Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant among implant overdenture bars with various levels of misfit.  J Prosthodont. 1995;  4 243-250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Clelland NL, Carr AB, Gilat A. Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant between as-cast an postsoldered implant frameworks for a five implant-supportedfixed prosthesis.  J Prosthodont. 1996;  5 193-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Clelland NL, van Putten MC. Comparison of strains produced in a bone simulant between conventional cast and resin-luted implant frameworks.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;  12 793-799
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, Sorensen JA. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;  15 239-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Haack JE, Sakaguchi L R, Sun T, Coffey P J. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;  10 529-536
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.  J Prosthet Dent. 1997;  77 28-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG. et al. . Cement fixation and screw retention: Parameters of passive fit. An in vitro-study of 3-unit implant supported FPDs.  Clin Oral Impl Res (in Druck).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH, Becker PJ. Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant supported superstructures.  J Prosthet Dent. 2000;  83 555-561
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hsu CC, Millstein PL, Stein RS. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques.  J Prosthet Dent. 1993;  69 588-593
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Inturregui JA, Aquilino SA, Ryther JS, Lund PS. Evaluation of three impression techniques for osseointegrated oral implants.  J Prosthet Dent. 1993;  69 503-509
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jemt T, Carlsson L, Boss A, Jorneus L. In vivo load measurements on osseointegrated implants supporting fixed or removable prostheses: A comparative pilot study.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;  6 413-417
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. In vitro study on passive fit in implant supported five-unit FPDs.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Keaveny TM, Guo XE, Wachtel EF, McMahon TA, Hayes WC. Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains.  J Biomech. 1994;  27 1127-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Keith SE, Miller BH, Woody RD, Higginbottom FL. Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implants abutments.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 369-378
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Keller W, Brägger U, Mombelli A. Peri-implant microflora of implants with cemented an screw retained suprastructures.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 1998;  9 209-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;  12 371-375
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant-supported prostheses.  Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;  7 15-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pietrabissa R, Gionso L, Quaglini V. et al. . An in vitro study on compensation of mismatch of screw versus cement-retained implant supported fixed prostheses.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 1995;  11 448-457
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pietrabissa R, Contro R, Quaglini V. et al. . Experimental and computational approach for the evaluation of the biomechanical effects of dental bridge misfit.  J Biomech. 2000;  1489-1495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Smedberg J-I, Nilner K, Rangert B, Svensson SA, Glantz P-O. On the influence of superstructure connection on implant preload: A methodological and clinical study.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 1996;  7 55-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Spector MR, Donovan TE, Nicholls JL. An evaluation of impression techniques for osseointegrated implants.  J Prosthet Dent. 1990;  63 444-447
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tan KBC. The clinical significance of distortion in implant prosthodontics: Is there such a thing as passive fit?.  Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1995;  24 138-157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. In vitro comparison of master cast accuracy for single-tooth implant replacement.  J Prosthet Dent. 2000;  83 562-566
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, Kirsch A. Analyses of stress distribution in a screw-retained Implant Prosthesis.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;  15 209-218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Korrespondenz

PD Dr. Dr. S. M. Heckmann

Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik

Glückstr. 11

91054 Erlangen

Phone: 09131/853 5807

Fax: 09131/853 6781

Email: siegfried.heckmann@rzmail.uni-erlangen.de

      >