			Home About us Contact

Wide Implant (wide + implant)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Biomechanical effects of double or wide implants for single molar replacement in the posterior mandibular region

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 10 2000
Y. Sato
Double implants have been thought to have biomechanical advantages for single molar replacement. To evaluate the effectiveness of double implants versus a wide implant, the vertical forces and torque on each implant were calculated by three-dimensional geometric analysis. Buccal load (100 N) perpendicular to cuspal inclination (20°) was applied at the occlusal surface of the superstructure. The three kinds of load points (A, B, C) were 1·5, 3·5, and 5·5 mm from the mesial contact point, respectively. Three implants were compared: mesial and distal double implants (, 3·3 mm), and a wide implant (, 5 mm). The wide implant showed torque around the long axis (1·8,15·0 N · cm) whereas double implants had no torque. On the other hand, the vertical forces on the mesial double implant were both smaller (60%: loaded at point C) and larger (140%: loaded at point A) than the wide implant. Given the smaller surface area of the mesial double implant, this large force may generate much higher stress in the peri-implant bone. These results suggest that the biomechanical advantage of double implants for single molar replacement is questionable when the occlusal force is loaded at the occlusal surface near the contact point. [source]

A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 1 2000
Y. Sato
To prevent loosening or fracture of screws retaining the prosthesis to the implants in the posterior partially edentulous region, the use of staggered buccal and lingual offset placement or wide implants is suggested. However, it is not known how this usage compensates for the torque produced by lateral occlusal forces. This study evaluated the effectiveness of offset placement of three implants and a wide implant placement at the most posterior site. Three-dimensional geometric analysis was used to calculate the tensile force applied to gold screws in clinical situations with buccal or lingual loading perpendicular to cuspal inclination (10 or 20°). Four variations of the placement of three implants (, 3·75 mm) are: (1) straight; (2) buccal offset of the second implant; (3) lingual offset of the second implant; (4) a wide implant (, 5 mm) placement at most posterior site. The offset placement did not always decrease tensile force at the gold screw, but wide implant placement and decrease in cuspal inclination did. [source]

Effects of splinted prosthesis supported a wide implant or two implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 4 2005
Heng-Li Huang
Abstract Objectives: Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of splinted prosthetic crowns were studied and stress analyses were evaluated with different types of implant support, including standard, wide or two implant(s) for partial, posterior edentulous restorations. Material and methods: The FE models were constructed based on a cadaver mandible containing the 2nd premolar and the 1st molar. The crowns of these two teeth were modeled as connected and disconnected to mimic the splinted and non-splinted designs, respectively. One standard implant was placed at the premolar region, while three types of implant support, one at a time (the standard implant, wide implant and two implants), were used to support the molar crown. A 100 N oblique load was applied to the buccal cusp on each crown. The FE simulation was validated experimentally via strain gauge measurement. Results: The experimental data were well correlated with the FE predictions (r2=0.97). When compared with the standard implant used in the molar area, the wide implant and two implants reduced the peak stress in crestal bone by 29,37% for both splinted and non-splinted cases. Inserting the standard implant into both the premolar and molar area, the bone stresses were identical for splinted and non-splinted designs. However, splinting the adjacent crowns has shown to decrease the bone stresses at the premolar region by 25%, while the wide implant or two implants were placed at the molar region. Conclusion: The biomechanical advantages of using the wide implant or two implants are almost identical. The benefit of load sharing by the splinted crowns is notable only when the implants on the premolar and molar regions have different supporting ability. Résumé Des modèles d'éléments finis (FE) tridimensionnels de couronnes prothétiques attachés ont étéétudiés et les analyses de stress ont étéévalués avec différents types de support d'implants comprenant le standard, le large ou deux implants pour des restaurations postérieures partielles. Les modèles FE ont été construits sur base de mandibule de cadavre contenant deux prémolaires et une molaire. Les couronnes de ces deux dents ont été modelées comme connectées et non-connectées pour mimer respectivement les modèles avec attache ou sans. Un implant standard a été placé dans la région prémolaire tandis que trois types d'implants supportaient en un temps (l'implant standard, l'implant large et deux implants) ont été utilisés pour porter la couronne molaire. Une charge oblique de 100 N a été appliquée sur la cuspide vestibulaire de chaque couronne. La simulation FE a été validée expérimentalement via une mesure par jauge de force. Les données expérimentales étaient en bonne corrélation avec les prévisions FE (r2=0,97). Comparés à l'implant standard utilisé dans la zone molaire, l'implant large et la combinaison de deux implants réduisait le pic de stress dans l'os crestal de 29 à 37% tant dans les cas attachés que non-attachés. En insérant l'implant standard dans la zone prémolaire et molaire, le stress osseux était identique pour les modèles attachés et non-attachés. Cependant, l'attache reliant les couronnes adjacentes s'accompagnait d'une dimininution des stress osseux dans la région prémolaire de 25%, tandis que l'implant large ou les deux implants étaient placés dans la région molaire. Les avantages biomécaniques de l'utilisation d'un implant large ou de deux implants sont quasi identiques. Le bénéfice d'une charge partagée par les couronnes solidarisées n'est visible que lorsque les implants des régions prémolaires et molaires ont des capacités de support différentes. Zusammenfassung Ziel: Bei der Rekonstruktion von Lücken im hinteren Seitenzahnbereich untersuchte man in einem dreidimensionalen Finiteelement-Modell (FE) zementierte Kronen und wertete in Belastungs-Analysen verschiedene Implantatabstützungen aus, nämlich auf Standardimplantaten, Wide neck-Implantaten oder auf zwei Implantaten. Material und Methoden: Das FE-Modell basierte auf den Werten eines Leichenunterkiefers in der Region des zweiten Prämolaren und ersten Molaren. Die Kronen auf diesen beiden Zähne wurden jeweils zusammenhängend und einzeln modelliert, so dass man die verblockte und unverblockte Situation nachempfinden konnte. In der Prämolarenregion implantierte man ein Standartimplantat. In der Molarenregion wählte man jeweils eine von drei verschiedenen Varianten der Abstützung für die Kronen: ein Standardimplantat, ein Wide neck-Implantat oder zwei Implantate. Auf den buccalen Höcker jeder Krone liess man schräg eine Kraft von 100 N auftreffen. Die FE-Simulation eichte man experimentell mit Hilfe von Dehnmessstreifen. Resultate: Die experimentellen Daten korrelierten sehr gut mit den FE-Voraussagen (r2=0.97). Verglich man die in der Molarenregion verwendeten Standartimplantate mit den Wide neck-Implantaten und zwei Implantaten, so reduzierte sich die Spitzenbelastung im crestalen Knochen um 29,37%, bei den verblockten wie auch bei den unverblockten Versionen. Setzte man sowohl im Prämolaren wie auch im Molarengebiet Standardimplantate, so war die Knochenbelastung für die verblockte wie auch für die unverblockte Version gleich gross. Wenn aber das Wide neck-Implantat oder zwei Implantate in der Molarenregion gesetzt worden waren, so vermochte die Verblockung der Implantat-Kronen die Knochenbelastung in der Prämolarenregion um 25% zu senken. Zusammenfassung: Ob man das Wide neck-Implantat oder zwei Implantate verwendet, die biomechanischen Vorteile sind beinahe identisch. Man erreicht durch das Verblocken von Kronen erst dann einen spürbaren Vorteil bezüglich Lastenverteilung, wenn die Implantate in der Prämolaren- und Molarenregion verschiedene Tragfähigkeiten aufweisen. Resumen Objetivos: Se estudiaron modelos tridimensionales de elementos finitos (FE) de coronas protésicas y se evaluó el análisis de estrés con diferentes tipos de soporte implantario, incluyendo implantes estándar, anchos o dos implantes, para restauraciones parciales en posteriores edéntulos. Material y métodos: Se construyeron dos modelos FE basados en mandíbula de cadáver conteniendo el 2° premolar y el 1er molar. Las coronas de estos dos dientes se modelaron como conectadas y desconectadas para imitar los diseños conectados y desconectados, respectivamente. Se colocó un implante estándar en la región premolar, mientras que para soportar la corona molar se colocaron tres tipos de implantes, uno a la vez, (un implante estándar, un implante ancho y dos implantes). Se aplicó una carga oblicua de 100N en la cúspide bucal de cada corona. La simulación de elementos finitos se validó experimentalmente por medio de medición de tensión. Resultados: Los datos experimentales se correlacionaron bien con las predicciones FE (r2=0.97). Al comparase a los implantes estándar usados en el área molar, el implante ancho y dos implantes redujeron el pico de estrés en el hueso crestal en un 29,37% tanto para los caso ferulizados como para los no ferulizados. Al insertar el implante estándar tanto en la región premolar como en la molar, los estrés óseos fueron idénticos para los diseños ferulizados como para los no ferulizados. De todos modos, la ferulización de las coronas adyacentes mostró un descenso del estrés óseo en un 25%, mientras el implante ancho o los dos implantes se colocaron en la región molar. Conclusión: Las ventajas biomecánicas de usar el implante ancho o dos implantes fueron casi idénticas. El beneficio de compartir la carga al ferulizar las coronas es notable solo cuando los implantes en las regiones premolar y molar tienen diferente capacidad de soporte. [source]

Biomechanical effects of double or wide implants for single molar replacement in the posterior mandibular region

A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region

Influence of implant diameter on surrounding bone

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 5 2007
Jeff Brink
Abstract Objectives: Implant osseointegration is dependent upon various factors, such as bone quality and type of implant surface. It is also subject to adaptation in response to changes in bone metabolism or transmission of masticatory forces. Understanding of long-term physiologic adjustment is critical to prevention of potential loss of osseointegration, especially because excessive occlusal forces lead to failure. To address this issue, wide-diameter implants were introduced in part with the hope that greater total implant surface would offer mechanical resistance. Yet, there is little evidence that variation in diameter translates into a different bone response in the implant vicinity. Therefore, this study aimed at comparing the impact of implant diameter on surrounding bone. Material and methods: Twenty standard (3.75 mm) and 20 wide (5 mm) implants were placed using an animal model. Histomorphometry was performed to establish initial bone density (IBD), bone to implant contact (BIC) and adjacent bone density (ABD). Results: BIC was 71% and 73%, whereas ABD was 65% and 52%, for standard and wide implants, respectively. These differences were not statistically different (P>0.05). Correlation with IBD was then investigated. BIC was not correlated with IBD. ABD was not correlated to IBD for standard implants (r2=0.126), but it was correlated with wide implants (r2=0.82). In addition, a 1 : 1 ratio between IBD and ABD was found for wide implants. It can be concluded, within the limits of this study, that ABD may be influenced by implant diameter, perhaps due to differences in force dissipation. [source]