Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.04720
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Influence of metal bar lever-arm on screws detorque for dental prosthesis implant supported

Influência do cantilever no destorque de parafusos de barras metálicas utilizadas em próteses do tipo protocolo de Brannemark

Wilson MATSUMOTO; Ana Paula MACEDO; Rossana Pereira de ALMEIDA; Anselmo Agostinho SIMIONATO; Takami Hirono HOTTA

Downloads: 0
Views: 30

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The cantilever length of implant-supported fixed prosthesis metal structure has been considered an important factor to transfer occlusion forces to the dental implant.

Objective: This study evaluated the influence of different extensions of cantilevers of Branemark protocol implant prosthesis when submitted to mechanical thermocycling by screw loosening evaluation.

Material and method: The groups G10 (n = 5), G15 (n = 5) and G20 (n = 5) were formed according to the distance in millimeters between the force application site in the cantilever and the center of the last implant. All metal structures (n = 15) were submitted to a 120 N cyclic vertical load in a chewing simulation machine (MSM-Elquip, São Carlos-SP, Brazil) under controlled temperature and moisture conditions. Two hundred and fifty thousand mechanical cycles were performed with a frequency of 2 Hz that simulates a masticatory activity similar to 3 months. To compare the data obtained regarding the loosening of the metal structure screws, implant position and sites of load application, the analysis of variance with two factors and the Tukey test were performed.

Result: Statistical analysis showed that the G10 group presented greater torque loss, statistically different from G15 (p = 0.001) and G20 (p = 0.002), and there was no significant difference between groups G15 and G20.

Conclusion: It can be concluded from the results that all the screws presented torque loss after simulation of 3 month masticatory activity, suggesting the need for periodical evaluation to prevent failures in the treatment.

Keywords

Dental implants, dental prosthesis, denture, implant-supported, dental implant-abutment design

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: O comprimento do cantilever da infraestrutura de prótese implanto-suportada tem sido considerado um importante fator de transferência de força de oclusão para o implante dentário.

Objetivo: Esse trabalho avaliou a influência das diferentes extensões do cantilever da prótese sobre implantes tipo protocolo de Branemark submetidas à termociclagem mecânica pela avaliação dos afrouxamentos dos parafusos de fixação.

Material e método: Os grupos G10 (n=5), G15 (n=5) e G20 (n=5) foram formados de acordo com a distância, em milímetros, entre o local de aplicação de força no cantilever e o centro do último implante. Todas as barras (n=15) foram submetidas a carga vertical cíclica de 120 N em uma máquina de simulação de mastigação (MSM-Elquip, São Carlos/SP, Brasil), em condições de temperatura e umidade controladas. Foram realizados 250 mil ciclos mecânicos com frequência de 2 Hz que simulou uma atividade mastigatória correspondente a 3 meses. Para comparar os dados obtidos quanto à soltura dos parafusos da barra, a posição dos implantes e os locais de aplicação de carga, foi realizada a análise de variância com dois fatores e o teste de Tukey.

Resultado: A análise estatística mostrou que o grupo G10 apresentou maior perda de torque, diferente estatisticamente de G15 (p=0,001) e G20 (p=0,002) e que não houve diferença significante entre os grupos G15 e G20.

Conclusão: Pode-se concluir que todos os parafusos apresentaram perda de torque após o ensaio simulando uma atividade mastigatória de 3 meses, sugerindo a necessidade de avaliação clínica periódica afim de prevenir fracasso no tratamento.
 

Palavras-chave

Implantes dentários, prótese dentária cirúrgica, dentadura fixada por implante, conexão implante dentário-pivô

References

1 Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2015. 993 p.

2 Koyano K, Esaki D. Occlusion on oral implants: current clinical guidelines. J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Feb;42(2):153-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.12239. PMid:25284468.

3 Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4. PMid:6809663.

4 Drago C. Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of interim, acrylic resin, full-arch screw-retained prosthesis and their relationship to prosthetic complications. J Prosthodont. 2017 Aug;26(6):502-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12426. PMid:26848820.

5 Kreissl M, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an anverage observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Dec;18(6):720-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01414.x. PMid:17888017.

6 Pjetursson BE, Zarauz C, Strasding M, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29(Suppl 18):160-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13362. PMid:30306682.

7 Bacchi A, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF, Santos MBF. Stress distribution in fixed-partial prosthesis and peri-implant bone tissue with diferente framework materials and vertical misfit levels: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Sci. 2013;55(3):239-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.55.239. PMid:24042591.

8 Dixon DL, Breeding L, Sadler JP, Mckay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant design. J Prosthet Dent. 1995 Sep;74(3):270-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80134-9. PMid:7473281.

9 Bhering CLB, Takahashi JMFK, Luthi LF, Henriques GEP, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF. Influence of the casting technique and dynamics loading on screw detorque and misfit of single unit implant-supported prostheses. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):404-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.690528. PMid:22607236.

10 Nissan J, Gross M, Shifman A, Assif D. Stress levels for well-fitting implant superstructures as a function of tightening force levels, tightening sequence, and different operators. J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Jul;86(1):20-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115182. PMid:11458260.

11 Farina AP, Spazzin AO, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF. Screw Joint stability after the application of retorque in implant-supported dentures under simulated masticatory conditions. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Jun;111(6):499-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.024. PMid:24423456.

12 Suedam V, Souza EA, Moura MS, Jacques LB, Rubo JH. Effect of abutment’s height and framework alloy on the load distribution of mandibular cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Feb;20(2):196-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01609.x. PMid:19191796.

13 Jacques LB, Moura MS, Suedam V, Souza EAC, Rubo JH. Effect of cantilever length and framework alloy on the strss distribuition of mandibular-cantilevered implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 jul;20(7):737-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01712.x. PMid:19489929.

14 Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick K. The relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28(2):67-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0067:TRBIPA>2.3.CO;2. PMid:12498448.

15 Walter L, Greenstein G. Utility of measuring anterior-posterior spread to determine distal cantilever length off a fixed implant-supported full-arch prosthesis: a review of the literature. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(10):790-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2020.06.016. PMid:32979958.

16 Medeiros RA, Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Vechiato AJ Fo, Bonatto LD, Santos DM. Stress distribution in an implant-supported mandibular complete denture using different cantilever lengths and occlusal coating materials. Implant Dent. 2017 Feb;26(1):106-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000534. PMid:28060024.

17 Cid RMO, Stanley K, Cordero EB, Benfatti CAM, Bianchini MA. Influence of cantilever length and type of arch antagonist on bone loss in total implant-supported prosthesis. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2014;27(3):131-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1852-48342014000300006. PMid:25560692.

18 Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):135-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_340_16. PMid:28435381.

19 Pereira J, Morsch CS, Henriques B, Nascimento RM, Benfatti CA, Silva FS, et al. Removal torque and biofilm accumulation at two dental implant-abutment joints after fatigue. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):813-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4173. PMid:27447147.

20 Cantwell A, Hobkirk JA. Preload loss in gold prosthesis-retaining screws as a function of time. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Jan-Feb;19(1):124-32. PMid:14982365.

21 Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Nelson EW, Tietge ID. Torque required to loosen single- tooth implant abutment screws before and after simulated function. Int J Prosthodont. 1993 Sep-Oct;6(5):435-9. PMid:8297452.

22 Jemt T. In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prosthesis in the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Mar-Apr;11(2):151-8. PMid:8666445.

23 Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Simpliflied treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla via immediate/early function tilted implants: a prospective 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(Suppl 1):S1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00069.x. PMid:16137082.

24 Rodriguez AM, Aquilino SA, Lund PS. Cantilever and implant biomechanics: a review of the literature - part 2. J Prosthodont. 1994 Jun;3(2):114-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1994.tb00138.x. PMid:9227107.

25 Rubo JH, Souza EAC. Finite element analysis of stress in bone adjacent to dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 2008;34(5):248-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2008)34[249:FEAOSI]2.0.CO;2. PMid:19170290.

26 Greco GD, Jansen WC, Landre Júnior J, Seraidarian PI. Biomechanical analysis of the stresses generated by different disocclusion patterns in an implant-supported mandibular complete denture. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 Sep-Oct;17(5):515-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572009000500029. PMid:19936535.
 


Submitted date:
07/02/2020

Accepted date:
12/15/2020

602570900e8825a84c1d54d5 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections