Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: A comparative laboratory study

By S.R. Allum, R.A. Tomlinson and R. Joshi

Abstract

Objectives: While caution in the use of small-diameter (≤3.5 mm) implants has been advocated in view of an increased risk of fatigue fracture under clinical loading conditions, a variety of implant designs with diameters <3 mm are currently offered in the market for reconstructions including fixed restorations. There is an absence of reported laboratory studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate clinical efficacy for implant designs with small diameters. This laboratory study aimed to provide comparative data on the mechanical performance of a number of narrow commercially marketed implants. Materials and methods: Implants of varying designs were investigated under a standardized test set-up similar to that recommended for standardized ISO laboratory testing. Implant assemblies were mounted in acrylic blocks supporting laboratory cast crowns and subjected to 30° off-axis loading on an LRX Tensometer. Continuous output data were collected using Nexygen software. Results: Load/displacement curves demonstrated good grouping of samples for each design with elastic deformation up to a point of failure approximating the maximum load value for each sample. The maximum loads for Straumann (control) implants were 989 N (±107 N) for the 4.1 mm RN design, and 619 N (±50 N) for the 3.3 mm RN implant (an implant known to have a risk of fracture in clinical use). Values for mini implants were recorded as 261 N (±31 N) for the HiTec 2.4 mm implant, 237 N (±37 N) for the Osteocare 2.8 mm mini and 147 N (±25 N) for the Osteocare mini design. Other implant designs were also tested. Conclusions: The diameters of the commercially available implants tested demonstrated a major impact on their ability to withstand load, with those below 3 mm diameter yielding results significantly below a value representing a risk of fracture in clinical practice. The results therefore advocate caution when considering the applicability of implants ≤3 mm diameter. Standardized fatigue testing is recommended for all commercially available implants

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:9199

Suggested articles


To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.