6533b854fe1ef96bd12aea01

RESEARCH PRODUCT

In-Vitro Investigation of Fatigue and Fracture Behavior of Transmucosal versus Submerged Bone Level Implants Used in Fixed Prosthesis

Miguel Peñarrocha-diagoEnrico BabettoSaverio CosolaUgo CovaniDavid Peñarrocha-oltraPaolo Toti

subject

TechnologyQH301-705.5QC1-999medicine.medical_treatmentProsthesis03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicinemedicineimplant fractureUltimate failureGeneral Materials ScienceBiology (General)QD1-999InstrumentationMathematicsFluid Flow and Transfer ProcessesOrthodonticstransmucosal implantTPhysicsProcess Chemistry and TechnologyGeneral EngineeringNonparametric statistics030206 dentistryfatigue testEngineering (General). Civil engineering (General)Fatigue limitComputer Science ApplicationsChemistryCoronal planeFracture (geology)ImplantTA1-2040submerged bone-level implant neckAbutment (dentistry)030217 neurology & neurosurgery

description

Background: The present in vitro study aimed to investigate the fatigue performance of different dental fixtures in two different emergence profiles. Biological failures are frequently reported because the problem canonly be solved by replacing a failing implant with a new one. Clinicians addressed minor mechanical failures, such as bending, loosening or the fracture of screws, abutment, or the entire prosthesis, by simply replacing or fixing them. Methods: Transmucosal and submerged bone-level dental implants underwent fatigue strength tests (statical and dynamical performance) by a standardized test: UNI EN ISO 14801:2016. Two types of emergence profiles (Premium sub-crestal straight implant with a cylindrical-shaped coronal emergence or Prama one-piece cylindrical-shape implant with transmucosal convergent neck and hyperbolic geometry) were tested, and dynamic fatigue were run to failure. Data was analyzed by a suitable statistical tool. Results: The Wöhler curve of 0.38 cm Premium group c2, appeared to be significantly different from that of the 0.38 cm Prama group c3 (nonparametric one-way ANOVA χ2= 6

https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136186