Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

İMPLANT DESTEKLİ PROTETİK RESTORASYONLARDA İMPLANT-DAYANAK ARA YÜZ DİZAYNININ ÖNEMİ

THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT INTERFACE DESIGN ON THE IMPLANT SUPPORTED PROSTHETIC RESTORATIONS SUCCESS

Journal Name:

  • Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
One of the most important factors that affect the success of implant rehabilitation is the occlusal forces transferred from prosthetic restorations to bone-implant interface. Implant interfaces should not allow the stress concentrations at the neighbouring tissue. Functional forces should be transferred to the peri-implant bone in the physiologic limitations. Today, there are two main implant-abutment interface connection designs: external connections and internal connections. Both of them have some advantages and disadvantages. Another important factor that affects implant-abutment interface is abutment screw design. Most dental implant systems consist of two components: the endosteal part (implant), that is placed in the surgical phase, and a transmucosal connection (abutment). So, the stability of the system against occlusal forces transferred to implant retained prosthetic restoration is dependent on the design of the two components acting as one stable body. Many studies have reported high success rates for developed implant designs. Failures at the implant-abutment interface are reported in a very small rate. However, even if there are small rates of failure, studies on the development of abutment-implant interface design should be continued.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Implant tedavisini n başarısını etkileyen en önemli faktörlerden birisi, protetik üst yapılardan ve implant birleşiminden kemik- implant ara yüzüne iletilen oklüzal kuvvetlerdir. Implant ara yüzeyleri komşu dokularda aşırı stress birikimlerine neden olmamalı ve fizyolojik sınırlar içinde fonksiyonel kuvvetleri peri-implant kemiğe iletebilmelidirler. Günümüzdeki implant-dayanak birleşim tasarımlarının temelinde iki ana yapı özelliği bulunmaktadır; eksternal bağlantılı dayanak-implant birleşim türü ve internal bağlantılı dayanak- implant birleşim türü. Her iki birleşim türünün de avantaj ve dezavantajları vardır. Implant-dayanak birleşiminde arayüz geometrisinin yanında diğer bir önemli faktör de dayanak vidasıdır. Birçok implant sistemi, cerrahi safhada yerleştirilen endosteal parça (implant - fixture) ve transmukozal bağlantı parçası (dayanak) olmak üzere iki parça halinde bulunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla implant destekli protetik restorasyon üzerine gelen oklüzal kuvvetler karşısında sistemin dayanıklılığı; bu iki parçanın tek ve sağlam bir alt yapı oluşturacak şekilde dizaynı ile mümkün olacaktır. Yapılan çalışmaları takiben klinik gereksinimler doğrultusunda farklı implant dizaynları geliştirilmiştir. Böylece implant-dayanak ara yüzeyinde fraktür ve stabilite kayıpları oranı günümüzde oldukça azaltılmıştır. Ancak, düşük oranlarda da olsa bu tür durumların rapor ediliyor olması halen daha bu konuda çalışmaların devam etmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-implant-destekli-protetik-restorasyonlarda-implant-dayanak-ara-yuz-dizayninin-onemi.pdf
  • 2
18-24
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1.
Cehrel
i M, Duyck J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Implant design and interface force transfer. A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(2):249-57.
2. Brunski
JB
. Biomaterials and biomechanics in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3(2):85-97.
3. Frost HM. Wolff's law and bone's structural adaptation to mechanical usage: an overview of clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(3):175-88.
4. Kasemo B, Lausma J. Biomaterial and implant surface science approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3(4):247-59.
5. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(4):290-8.
6. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):76-94.
7. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics tmplant-Dayanak Ara Yüz Özellikleri
22
Süleyman
Demire
l Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg
Cilt/Vol.:1 Sayı/No.:2 Sayfa/Page: 18-24, 2009
of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(4):519-26.
8. Ricciardi Coppede A, de Mattos Mda G, Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF. Effect of repeated torque/mechanical loading cycles on two different abutment types in implants with internal tapered connections: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(6):624-32.
9. Alkan I, Sertgöz A, Ekici B. Influence of occlusal forces on stress distribution in preloaded dental implant screws. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(4):319-25.
10. Sutter F, Weber HP, Sorensen J, Belser U. The new restorative concept of the ITI dental implant system: Design and engineering. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1993;13:409-31.
11. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics
of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(4):519-26.
12. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(12):1276-84
13. Norton MR. In vitro evaluation of the strength of the conical implant-to-abutment joint in two commercially available implant systems. J Prosthet
Dent. 2000;83(5):567-71.
14. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(4):290-8
Meriç
15. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64(2):185-94.
16. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Gröndahl K. 3-year followup study of early single implant restorations ad modum Brânemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1990;10(5):340-9.
17. Jemt T, Linden B, Lekholm U. Failures and complications in 127 consecutively placed fixed partial prostheses supported by Brânemark implants: from prosthetic treatment to first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7(1):40-4.
18. Periard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS,
Botsis J, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors. A comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13(5):542-9.
19. Basten CH, Nicholls JI, Daly CH, Taggart R.
LLoad fatigue performance of two implant-abutment combinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(4):522-8.
20. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu R, Namura S. Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant-abutment joint
designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:604-10.
21. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro
differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(1):75-8.
22. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(12):1276-84.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com