In vitro biomechanical study demonstrates varying fracture strength across implant connection designs under dynamic cyclic loading, suggesting superior durability for internal tube-in-tube systems.
OBJECTIVES: Failures of implant-abutment connections are relatively frequent clinical problems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of long-term dynamic loading on the fracture strength of different implant-abutment connections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six implant systems were tested: two systems with external connections (Brånemark, Compress) and four systems with internal connections (Frialit-2, Replace-Select, Camlog, Screw-Vent). Fracture strength was tested in two subgroups for each system: one subgroup with (dyn) and the other without prior dynamic loading (contr). Each subgroup consisted of eight specimens with standard implant-abutment combinations for single molar crowns. Dynamic loading was performed in a two-axis chewing simulator with 1,200,000 load cycles at 120 N. RESULTS: Median fracture strengths in Newton (N) and 25th and 75th percentiles [in brackets] were: Brånemark: dyn=729 [0;802]/contr=782 [771;811], Frialit-2: dyn=0 [0;611]/contr=887 [798;941], Replace-Select: dyn=1439 [1403;1465]/contr=1542 [1466;1623], Camlog: dyn=1482 [1394;1544]/contr=1467 [1394;1598], Screw-Vent: dyn=0 [0;526]/contr=780 [762;847] and Compress: dyn=818[0;917]/contr=1008 [983;1028]. In some dyn subgroups, failures of the implant-abutment connection occurred already during dynamic loading: three specimens of the Brånemark and Compress groups and six specimens of the Screw-Vent and the Frialit-2 groups failed during dynamic loading. Statistically significant differences (P< or =0.05) in fracture strength could be found between groups with different connection designs. CONCLUSION: Implant systems with long internal tube-in-tube connections and cam-slot fixation showed advantages with regard to longevity and fracture strength compared with systems with shorter internal or external connection designs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steinebrunner et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: