| 3487 Load Transfer with Offset Implant Placement and Angulated Posterior Implant | ||
|
H. ITOH, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, T. SASAKI, Tohoku School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan, T. KUROE, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan, H. NAKAHARA, Miyagi National Hospital, Miyagi-ken, Japan, and A.A. CAPUTO, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, USA Objectives: Previous studies have indicated that biomechanical benefits from buccolingual offset implant placement were dependent upon the location of occlusion induced forces. However, biomechanical effects of offset placement may be different when an inclined implant is included. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the load transfer characteristics of offset implant placement in conjunction with angulated abutments on inclined posterior fixtures. Methods: Two photoelastic models were fabricated of a human left mandible edentulous distal to the canine. Three screw type implants (3i, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) of 3.75 mm diameter were embedded into the edentulous region of each model. One 13 mm long fixture was placed in the premolar region and two 8.5 mm long fixtures were placed in the molar region. The posterior fixture was positioned at 25° to the occlusal plane. Implants were placed in a straight line in one model and in a staggered 1.5 mm buccolingual offset configuration in the other. Fixed anchor bridges were fabricated to the same occlusal scheme for each placement configuration, using angulated abutments (3i) for the posterior implants. Vertical and lateral loads were applied to the prostheses at fixed locations. The stresses which developed in the supporting structure were observed and recorded photographically in the field of a circular polariscope. Results: Stresses around the angulated fixture tended to be higher compared to those around the other fixtures regardless of implant placement configuration. Depending upon the load condition, some differences in stress distribution and intensity were noted between the straight line and staggered implant placement schemes. Stresses around the middle implant tended to be higher with the staggered placement, especially when the buccal cusps were loaded. Conclusions: There was no clear-cut biomechanical advantage to a staggered 1.5 mm buccal and lingual offset placement configuration in conjunction with an inclined posterior fixture. | ||
| Seq #360 - Biomechanics/Implant Surfaces 10:15 AM-11:30 AM, Saturday, 13 March 2004 Hawaii Convention Center Exhibit Hall 1-2 | ||
|
Back to the Implantology Research Program
| ||