Sotto-Maior Bruno Salles, Senna Plinio Mendes, da Silva-Neto João Paulo, de Arruda Nóbilo Mauro Antônio, Del Bel Cury Altair Antoninha
Department of Implantology, São Leopoldo Mandic Dental School, Campinas, Brazil.
J Prosthodont. 2015 Jan;24(1):52-6. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12171. Epub 2014 Jun 11.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the photoelastic fringe patterns around two short-wide implants supporting single crowns with different crown-to-implant (C/I) ratios.
External hexagon (EH) cylindrical implants (5 × 7 mm) or Morse Taper (MT) conical implants (5 × 6 mm) were embedded individually into photoelastic resin blocks. Each implant received a single metal-ceramic crown, with a C/I ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 (n = 10). Each set was positioned in a polariscope and submitted to a 0.5 kgf compressive load, applied axially or obliquely (30°). The polariscope images were digitally recorded, and based on isoclinal and isochromatic fringes, the shear stress was calculated at 5 predetermined points around each implant. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (α = 0.05).
Under axial loading, the stress was concentrated at the crestal region, and there were no differences between C/I ratio or implant types. In contrast, under oblique loading, EH implants showed lower stress values than the MT group and the 2:1 C/I ratio showed higher stress concentration for both implant types (p < 0.05). Moreover, MT implants showed stress distribution through a higher area than the EH implant did, with a tendency to direct the stress toward the implant's apex under oblique loading.
MT conical short-wide implants showed higher stress values that were distributed through a higher area directed to the implant apex. The C/I ratio influences the stress distribution only under oblique loading.
本研究旨在评估两颗短宽种植体支持不同冠种植体(C/I)比例的单冠周围的光弹性条纹图案。
将外部六边形(EH)圆柱形种植体(5×7mm)或莫氏锥度(MT)锥形种植体(5×6mm)分别嵌入光弹性树脂块中。每个种植体接受一个单金属烤瓷冠,C/I比例为1:1或2:1(n = 10)。每组置于偏光镜下,轴向或倾斜(30°)施加0.5kgf压缩载荷。对偏光镜图像进行数字记录,并基于等倾线和等色线,在每个种植体周围的5个预定点计算剪应力。数据采用双向方差分析(α = 0.05)。
在轴向加载下,应力集中在嵴顶区域,C/I比例或种植体类型之间无差异。相比之下,在倾斜加载下,EH种植体的应力值低于MT组,并且对于两种种植体类型,2:1的C/I比例显示出更高的应力集中(p < 0.05)。此外,MT种植体的应力分布面积比EH种植体大,在倾斜加载下有将应力导向种植体根尖的趋势。
MT锥形短宽种植体显示出更高的应力值,且应力分布在指向种植体根尖的更大区域。C/I比例仅在倾斜加载下影响应力分布。