The In Vivo Wear Resistance of 12 Composite Resins

: The in vivo wear resistance of 12 composite resins were compared with an amalgam control using the Latin Square experimental design. Sixteen edentulous patients wearing specially designed complete dentures formed the experimental population. Materials and Methods : The Michigan Computer Graphics Measurement System was used to digitize the surface of the control and composite resin samples before and after 3-month test periods to obtain wear data. The 12 composite resins selected for this investigation based on their published composite classification types were seven fine particle composites, three blends, and two microfilled composite resins. The Latin Square experimental design was found to be valid with the factor of material being statistically different at the 5% level of significance. Wear was computed as volume loss (mm 3 /mm 2 ), and all of the composites studied had more wear than the amalgam control ( P = .001). Results : After 3 months, the mean (error) of wear of the amalgam was 0.028 (0.006). Means (error) of wear for the 12 composites were ranked from most to least wear by mean wear volume loss. Conclusions : The absence of any relationship between mean wear volume loss and the volume percentage filler was confirmed by the correlation coefficient r = -0.158.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72960/1/j.1532-849X.1992.tb00419.x.pd

A Bioengineered Implant for a Predetermined Bone Cellular Response to Loading Forces. A Literature Review and Case Report

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142048/1/jper1276.pd

Effect of Microthreads and Platform Switching on Crestal Bone Stress Levels: A Finite Element Analysis

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142288/1/jper2166.pd

Clinical management and microscopic characterisation of fatique-induced failure of a dental implant. Case report

BACKGROUND: Osseointegrated endosseous implants are widely used for the rehabilitation of completely and partially edentulous patients, being the final prosthodontic treatment more predictable and the failures extremely infrequent. A case of fracture of an endosseous dental implant, replacing the maxillary first molar, occurring in a middle-age woman, 5 years after placement is reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The difficult management of this rare complication of implant dentistry together with the following rehabilitation is described. Additionally, the authors performed an accurate analysis of the removed fractured implant both by the stereomicroscope and by the confocal laser scanning microscope. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The fractured impant showed the typical signs of a fatigue-induced fracture in the coronal portion of the implant together with numerous micro-fractures in the apical one. Three dimensional imaging performed by confocal laser scanning microscope led easily to a diagnosis of "fatigue fracture" of the implant. The biomechanical mechanism of implant fractures when overstress of the implant components due to bending overload is discussed. CONCLUSION: When a fatigue-induced fracture of an dental implant occurs in presence of bending overload, the whole implant suffers a deformation that is confirmed by the alterations (micro-fractures) of the implant observable also in the osseointegrated portion that is easily appraisable by the use of stereomicroscope and confocal laser scanning microscope without preparation of the sample

The Periotest Method: Implant-Supported Framework Precision of Fit Evaluation

: In this study, the Periotest instrument was used to measure the precision of fit between cast high noble-metal frameworks and the supporting implants in a patient-simulation model. Three framework conditions and three implant-location variables were used to evaluate the rigidity of the assembly as measured by the Periotest method. The framework variables were (1) one-piece castings (OPC); (2) sectioned-soldered inaccurate castings (SSIC); and (3) sectioned-soldered accurate castings (SSAC). The implant-location variables were right anterior (RA), center (C), and left anterior (LA). Materials and Methods : The patient simulation model used consisted of three self-tapping BrÅnemark implants in a reasonable arch curvature in bovine bone. Three working casts were fabricated from the patient-simulation model using polyvinyl siloxane and tapered impression copings. From the working casts, three sets of three frameworks were fabricated as OPCs, SSICs, and SSACs using type 3 high noble alloy. The SSICs were fabricated with a quantitative misfit of 101.6 Μm at the facial surface, between the abutment-to-gold cylinder interface at the C implant location. Periotest value (PTV) measurements were made at the midfacial surface of the frameworks directly above each abutment-to-gold cylinder interface. Three measurements were made for each test condition. The data were analyzed to compare framework condition(s) and implant location(s) using ANOVA and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference Comparison Test. Results : The ANOVA showed that significant differences exist between the mean PTV data for framework condition and for implant location (p < .01). Significant differences were shown between the mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies and the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The SSICs displayed a more positive (+) mean PTV than the OPCs. The OPC assemblies had a more positive mean PTV than the SSAC assemblies. The mean PTV data for the SSAC assemblies had a significantly different PTV (p < .01) than the other two framework condition assemblies. The OPC and the SSIC assemblies had PTVs that were not significantly different. The C implant location was significantly different from the RA and the LA implant locations (p < .01). The RA and the LA implant locations were not significantly different from each other. The C implant location always demonstrated the most positive mean PTV regardless of the framework condition being tested. Conclusions : The Periotest instrument quantified differences in the precision of fit between three framework conditions. The SSAC assemblies were significantly more rigid than the OPC and SSIC assemblies. The OPC and SSIC assemblies' mean PTVs were not significantly different. The mean PTVs for the C implant location and the RA and LA implant locations were significantly different (p < .01). The mean PTVs of the RA and LA implant locations were not significantly different. The implant-location PTVs followed the same rank order for all three framework conditions. The procedures used to fabricate a more precise fit between the framework and the supporting implants is influenced by the skill of the clinician and technician.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75096/1/j.1532-849X.1996.tb00298.x.pd