Implant-abutment interface: a comparison of the ultimate force to failure among narrow-diameter implant systems.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Limited available alveolar ridge bone and space deficiencies are some of the challenging scenarios that have led many dental implant manufacturers to develop narrow-diameter implants of various designs. Clinicians may have concerns about the durability and function of the narrow-diameter implants.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore and compare the ultimate failure resistance of the smallest diameter of the 2-stage type implant provided by 5 commonly used dental implant systems.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty implants, Astra OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm and 3.5 mm, Straumann Bone Level 3.3 mm, Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent 3.7 mm, Full Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm, and NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm, 5 of each type, were tested in this study. A rigid clamp was used to hold the implants at a 30-degree angle to a static load vector. The load continued until the specimen broke or obviously deformed. Peak loads were recorded at that point for all the studied implant systems. Student t test and 1-way ANOVA were used to compare the mean peak load values (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean fracture/deformation peak load values were 367.20 N ± 98.05 for Astra OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm; 568.80 N ± 85.24 for Astra OsseoSpeed 3.5 mm; 679.00 N ± 81.09 for Full Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm; 553.4 N ± 56.96 for NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm; 802.80 N ± 134.50 for Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent 3.7 mm; and 576.20 N ± 71.45 for Straumann Bone Level 3.3 mm. Generally, a higher load was required to cause failure in implants with larger diameters than in narrower-diameter implants, and more force was necessary to cause failure in Ti6Al4V alloy implants than in commercially pure titanium implants.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to implant diameter and ultimate failure strength, Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm was considered to be more advantageous in comparison with the other implants tested.