LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help