Share Page:

Volume 24 , Issue 5
September/October 2009

Pages 781–789

Photoelastic Analysis of Stress Patterns from Different Implant-Abutment Interfaces

Sérgio Rocha Bernardes, DDS/Cleudmar Amaral de Araújo, Mech Eng, MS, PhD/Alfredo Júlio Fernandes Neto, DDS, MS, PhD/Paulo Simamoto Júnior, DDS, MSc/Flávio Domingues das Neves, DDS, MS, PhD

PMID: 19865617

Purpose: To investigate the peri-implant stress fields generated from four different implant-abutment interfaces under axial loading applied at the center of the implant and several millimeters away from the implant center via photoelastic analysis. Materials and Methods: Similar unthreaded and cylindric implants and abutments were fabricated and embedded in photoelastic resin with four different implant-abutment interfaces: external hex, internal hex, internal taper (11.5 degrees), and solid connection to the abutment (one piece). The samples were submitted to vertical compressive loads; one was applied at the implant center (1.5 kg; centered load), and the other was applied 6.5 mm away from the center, 4.4 mm from the outside of the outer aspect of the implant (0.75 kg; off-centered load). The maximum shear stresses were determined and observed at 46 points around the implants under the centered load and at 61 points under the off-center load in the photoelastic models. Graphics describing the maximum shear stress (y-axis) and the analyzed points (x-axis) were obtained, and areas under the curves were calculated. Results: The centered loading (all points) resulted in small differences. The lowest amounts of stress were observed for the internal-taper implants, and values were minimally greater (0.4% to 3.3%) for the other implants. No statistically significant differences were found between groups for the centered load in any area. Under an off-center load, the internal-hex implants presented the least stress (all points). For off-center loading, the internal-hexagon implants differed significantly from the external-hex and one-piece implants and displayed the lowest stress levels. Conclusion: Under an off-center load, the internal-hex interfaces presented the lowest stress concentrations, internal-taper interfaces presented intermediate results, and one-piece and external-hex implants resulted in high stress levels. Centralized axial loads produced similar results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:781–789

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.


© 2015 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us