Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Controversy remains over the rehabilitation of implant-supported restorations regarding the need to splint adjacent implant-supported crowns. This study compared the effects of simulated occlusal loading of three implants restored with cemented crowns, splinted versus unsplinted. Three adjacent screw-shaped implants were passively inserted into three holes drilled in a photo-elastic model. Two combinations of cemented restorations were fabricated; three adjacent unsplinted and three adjacent splinted crowns. Strain gauges were connected to the implant necks and to the margins of the overlaying crowns. Fifteen axial static loads of 20-kg loadings were carried out right after each other via a custom-built loading apparatus. Strain gauges located on the implant neck supporting splinted restoration demonstrated significantly (P < 0.001) more strain (sum of strains = 3348.54 microstrain) compared with the single crowns (sum of strains = 988.57 microstrain). In contrast, significantly (P < 0.001) more strain was recorded on the strain gauges located on the restoration margins of the single crowns (sum of strains = 756.32 microstrain) when compared with splinted restorations (sum of strains = 186.12 microstrain). The concept of splinting adjacent implants to decrease loading of the supporting structures may require re-evaluation. The clinical relevance of these findings needs further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nissan et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: