Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba School of Dentistry, UNICAMP, Piracicaba, Brazil.
J Prosthodont. 2012 Oct;21(7):535-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00871.x. Epub 2012 Aug 20.
The aim of this in vitro study was to quantify strain development during axial and nonaxial loading using strain gauge analysis for three-element implant-supported FPDs, varying the arrangement of implants: straight line (L) and offset (O).
Three Morse taper implants arranged in a straight line and three implants arranged in an offset configuration were inserted into two polyurethane blocks. Microunit abutments were screwed onto the implants, applying a 20 Ncm torque. Plastic copings were screwed onto the abutments, which received standard wax patterns cast in Co-Cr alloy (n = 10). Four strain gauges were bonded onto the surface of each block tangential to the implants. The occlusal screws of the superstructure were tightened onto microunit abutments using 10 Ncm and then axial and nonaxial loading of 30 Kg was applied for 10 seconds on the center of each implant and at 1 and 2 mm from the implants, totaling nine load application points. The microdeformations determined at the nine points were recorded by four strain gauges, and the same procedure was performed for all of the frameworks. Three loadings were made per load application point. The magnitude of microstrain on each strain gauge was recorded in units of microstrain (με). The data were analyzed statistically by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05).
The configuration factor was statistically significant (p= 0.0004), but the load factor (p= 0.2420) and the interaction between the two factors were not significant (p= 0.5494). Tukey's test revealed differences between axial offset (με) (183.2 ± 93.64) and axial straight line (285.3 ± 61.04) and differences between nonaxial 1 mm offset (201.0 ± 50.24) and nonaxial 1 mm straight line (315.8 ± 59.28).
There was evidence that offset placement is capable of reducing the strain around an implant. In addition, the type of loading, axial force or nonaxial, did not have an influence until 2 mm.
本体外研究旨在通过应变计分析量化三元件种植体支持的 FPD 在轴向和非轴向加载下的应变发展,其中种植体的排列方式有直线(L)和偏置(O)两种。
将三根莫氏锥度种植体直线排列,三根种植体偏置排列,植入两个聚氨酯块中。将微型单元基台拧入种植体,施加 20 Ncm 的扭矩。将塑料冠拧到基台上,基台上附有标准的蜡型,用 Co-Cr 合金铸造(n = 10)。将四个应变计粘贴到每个块的表面上,与种植体相切。将上部结构的牙合螺丝用 10 Ncm 拧紧到微型单元基台上,然后在每个种植体的中心和种植体 1 毫米和 2 毫米处施加 30 Kg 的轴向和非轴向加载 10 秒,总共在 9 个加载点进行加载。通过四个应变计记录 9 个点的微变形,对所有的支架都进行同样的操作。每个加载点进行三次加载。每个应变计的微应变幅度以微应变单位(με)记录。数据通过双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验(p < 0.05)进行统计学分析。
结构因子具有统计学意义(p = 0.0004),但负载因子(p = 0.2420)和两个因素之间的相互作用没有统计学意义(p = 0.5494)。Tukey 检验显示轴向偏置(με)(183.2 ± 93.64)和轴向直线(285.3 ± 61.04)之间以及非轴向 1 毫米偏置(201.0 ± 50.24)和非轴向 1 毫米直线(315.8 ± 59.28)之间存在差异。
有证据表明,偏置放置能够减少种植体周围的应变。此外,直到 2 毫米,轴向力或非轴向力的加载类型都没有影响。