The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2011 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Photoelastic Comparison of Single Tooth Implant-Abutment-Bone of Platform Switching vs Conventional Implant Designs

Adriana Cristina Zavanelli, Recardo Alexandre Zavanelli, Fabiana Rossi

Citation Information : Zavanelli AC, Zavanelli RA, Rossi F. Photoelastic Comparison of Single Tooth Implant-Abutment-Bone of Platform Switching vs Conventional Implant Designs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (2):124-130.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1021

Published Online: 00-04-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objectives

The maintenance and stability of peri-implantar soft tissue seem to be related to the crestal bone around the implant platform and different implant designs connections might affect this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to evaluate by photoelastic analysis the stress distribution in the cervical and apical site of implant-abutment interface of conventional implant joints (external hex, internal hex and cone morse) and compare to the novel platform switching design.

Materials and methods

It was fabricated photoelastic models using five different implant-abutment connection, one set of external hex (Alvim Ti, Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil), one set of internal hex (Full Osseotite, Biomet 3i, Florida, USA), one cone morse set (Alvim CM, Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil), and two sets of internal hex plus platform switching concept (Alvim II Plus, Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil) (Certain Prevail, Biomet 3i, Florida, USA). These models were submitted to two compressive loads, axial from 20 kgf (load I) and another (load II), inclined 45° from 10 kgf. During the qualitative analysis, digital pictures were taken from a polariscope, for each load situation. For the quantitative analyses in both situations of load, the medium, minimum and maximum in MPa values of shear strain were determined in the cervical and apical site. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the results between the different systems and between cervical and apical site were compared using Mann-Whitney U test.

Conclusion

The minor stress concentration strongly suggest the use of platform switching design as a manner to prevent bone loss around the implant-abutment platform.

Clinical Significance

From the result of this study its possible to make clinical decision for implant system which provides implant components with platform switching characteristics.

How to cite this article

Rossi F, Zavanelli AC, Zavanelli RA. Photoelastic Comparison of Single Tooth Implant-abutment- Bone of Platform Switching vs Conventional Implant Designs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(2):124-130.


PDF Share
  1. Dealing with dental implant failures. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16(3):171-75.
  2. A review of dental implants and infection. J Hosp Infect 2009;72(2):104-10.
  3. Implant treatment of patients with edentulous jaws: A 20-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10(4):207-17.
  4. Hard and soft tissue responses to the platformswitching technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008; 28(6):551-57.
  5. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1(1):11-25.
  6. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(5):567-72.
  7. Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4(3):158-61.
  8. Platform switching as a means to achieving implant esthetics. NY State Dent J 2005;71(3):34-37.
  9. Platform switching: A new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(1):9-17.
  10. Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption. Implant Dent 2006; 15(3):313-20.
  11. A new implant design for crestal bone preservation: Initial observations and case report. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005;17(10):735-40.
  12. Implants and components: Entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(1):76-94.
  13. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7(3):353-59.
  14. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4(3): 241-47.
  15. The ITI hollow-cylinder implant (I). Construction materials coating instrumentation. Quintessenz 1981;32(8):1377-85.
  16. The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 1981;9(1):15-25.
  17. Survival and success of ITI implants and prostheses: Retrospective study of cases with 5-year followup. Eur J Dent 2009;3(1):42-49.
  18. Immediate maxillary restoration of single-tooth implants using platform switching for crestal bone preservation: A 12-month study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(2):275-81.
  19. Preservation of peri-implant soft and hard tissues using platform switching of implants placed in immediate extraction sockets: A proof-of-concept study with 12 to 36 month follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22(6):995-1000.
  20. Bone remodeling adjacent to Morse coneconnection implants with platform switch: A fluorescence study in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(2): 257-66.
  21. Immediately loaded titanium implant with a tissue-stabilizing/maintaining design (‘beyond platform switch’) retrieved from man after 4 weeks: A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation. A case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(3):276-82.
  22. A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(2):299-308.
  23. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: Is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18(5):581-84.
  24. Biomechanics studies in dentistry: Bioengineering applied in oral implantology. J Craniofac Surg 2009.
  25. Photoelasticity as a research technique for analyzing stresses in dental structures. J Dent Res 1955; 34(6):831-38.
  26. Análise fotoelástica da união de pilar a implantes de hexágono externo e interno. Implant News 2006; 3(4):355-59.
  27. Dental occlusion: Modern concepts and their application in implant prosthodontics. Odontology 2009;97(1): 8-17.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.