The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: Comparison between two experimental techniques
The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: Comparison between two experimental techniques
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70246-x
复制
发表时间：
1998-03-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Sudai, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brosh, T;Pilo, R;Sudai, D
问题陈述。预斜基台产生的应力分布与直基台不同。本研究的目的是：(1)通过在模拟弯曲介质中嵌入种植体的应变计来测试预倾斜基牙产生不同于直基牙的应力分布的假设；确定沿种植体/骨界面的应变分布；(2)用光弹性方法检验这一假设；(3)比较两种实验方法。材料和方法。抛光5个Integral Omniloc圆柱形种植体13 x 4 mm以去除羟基磷灰石涂层，然后连接6个线性微型应变片，种植体表面两侧各3个。两个类似的植入物被嵌入光弹性材料中。三个基台，直，15度和25度，连接到每个种植体；记录应变与施加的压缩力。应变对力参数的响应定义为应变-力曲线的斜率。还记录了等色条纹图案。应变片测量结果显示，15度角基牙和25度角基牙种植体冠状区压缩应变浓度分别比直基牙高3倍和4.4倍；而光弹性法在条纹阶上只增加了11%。从种植体的冠状对侧位置也测量了拉伸应变，光弹性模型没有显示应力类型的变化。当分析沿种植体/骨界面的应力分布时，从连接到植入物的应变片获得的数据可以精确地模拟临床情况。光弹性提供了不同的信息，因此应被视为一种补充方法。
Statement of problem. Preangled abutments produce different stress distribution compared to straight abutments.Purpose. The objectives of this study were to (1) test the hypothesis that preangled abutments produce different stress distribution than straight abutments by using strain gauges attached to implants embedded ill a medium simulating bent: to determine strain distribution along the implant/bone interface; (2) test this hypothesis by photoelastic method; and (3) compare the: two experimental techniques.Materials and methods. Five Integral Omniloc cylindrical implants 13 x 4 mm were polished to remove the hydroxyapatite coating, then six linear miniature strain gauges vr ere attached, three on each side of the implant's surface. Two similar implants were embedded in a photoelastic material. Three abutments, straight, 15 degrees, and 25 degrees, were connected to each implant; strain versus applied compressive forces were recorded. Strain response to force parameter was defined as the slope of the strain-force curve. Isochromatic fringe patterns were also recorded.Results. The strain gauge measurements showed higher, threefold and 4.4 fold, compressive strain concentration in the coronal zone of the implant when 15-degree and 25-degree angulated abutments were used, respectively, compared with the straight abutment; whereas the photoelastic method showed an increase of only 11% in fringe order. Tensile strains were also measured From the coronal contralateral position on the implant, where photoelastic models did not show a change in stress type.Conclusions. Data obtained from strain gauges bonded to implants embedded in a medium can represent a precise simulation of the clinical condition when analyzing stress distribution along the implant/bone interface. Photoelasticity provides different information and therefore should be regarded as a complementary method.