Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
IJP Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: IJP
The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Edited by George A. Zarb, BChD, DDS, MS, MS, FRCD(C)

ISSN 0893-2174

Publication:
November/December 2010
Volume 23 , Issue 6

Back
Share Abstract:

Effect of Tilted and Short Distal Implants on Axial Forces and Bending Moments in Implants Supporting Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study

Toru Ogawa, DDS, PhD/Sandra Dhaliwal, DDS/Ignace Naert, DDS, PhD/Atsushi Mine, DDS, PhD/Mats Kronstrom, DDS, PhD/Keiichi Sasaki, DDS, PhD/Joke Duyck, DDS, PhD

Pages: 566–573
PMID: 21209995

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the axial forces (AFs) and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with a distal cantilever (10 mm) compared to an FDP supported by a tilted or short (7 mm instead of 13 mm) posterior implant by means of in vitro strain gauge measurements. Materials and Methods: Nine titanium Brånemark implants were placed in an edentulous composite mandible. The mechanical loading conditions were evaluated for the following three situations: (1) short distal implants supporting a cantilever, (2) long tilted distal implants, and (3) no distal implants supporting a cantilever. A vertical load of 50 N was applied at the first molar position, and the resultant AFs and BMs were measured for the three different situations, three different numbers of supporting implants (three, four, or five), and three different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic, and fiber-reinforced acrylic). Results: The mean BMs, as well as the maximum AFs and BMs, were significantly higher in the model with a cantilever compared to that having the tilted or short distal implants (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the models with a distally tilted implant versus a short distal implant. Conclusion: The use of posterior implants reduced the AFs and BMs on implants supporting an FDP compared to that with a distal cantilever. No difference in mechanical loading was observed between short tilted distal implants. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:566–573.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog