ABSTRACT
Introduction:
For the best possible clinical results, dental implant systems must have their biomechanical characteristics thoroughly evaluated. These systems are essential to restorative dentistry. The purpose of this study was to analyze the resistance and stress distribution of prosthetic screws across five distinct implant systems.
Methods:
The stress distribution on prosthesis screws was evaluated, and loading conditions were simulated using finite element analysis (FEA). To assess the screws’ resistance to torque forces, mechanical testing was done.
Findings:
Among the implant systems, there were notable differences in torque resistance and stress distribution. System A had the least amount of stress and the most torque resistance, whereas System E displayed the most stress and the least torque resistance.
Conclusion:
The results emphasize the significance of taking biomechanical characteristics into account when choosing implant systems for clinical usage, which has ramifications for patient care and treatment planning. Additional investigation concentrating on thorough clinical assessments is necessary to confirm these results and enhance treatment plans.
KEYWORDS: Finite element analysis, implant systems, prosthetic screws, resistance, stress analysis
INTRODUCTION
Dental implant systems, which offer practical solutions for edentulous patients or those with lost teeth, have transformed the area of restorative dentistry. These devices greatly improve the quality of life for those who are impacted by tooth loss by providing a dependable method of restoring both function and appearance. The secure connection of prosthetic components to the implant body, made possible by prosthetic screws, is essential to the efficacy of dental implant therapy.[1,2,3]
Numerous variables, such as implant design, material composition, and biomechanical qualities, affect prosthetic screw function. Variations in these elements between implant systems can lead to differences in prosthetic screw resistance and stress distribution. Clinicians must be aware of these differences to choose the best implant system for each patient’s unique requirements.[4,5,6]
Few studies have thoroughly evaluated the stress and resistance of prosthetic screws across various systems even though many have looked into the biomechanical behavior of dental implant systems. The purpose of this study is to close this disparity by comparing five popular implant systems. This research aims to offer important insights into the functioning of these systems by assessing the stress distribution and resistance of prosthetic screws. These insights will help physicians make well-informed judgments about implant selection and treatment planning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Five popular dental implant systems (A: TitanDent, B: OsseoTech, C: BioImplant, D: ProstoFirm, and E: EnduraGrip) were chosen for examination in this study, which was carried out at a tertiary care dental center. The proper implant bodies, prosthetic parts, and prosthetic screws were supplied with each implant system. Prosthetic screws were manufactured of titanium or titanium alloy, and titanium alloy was used for the implant bodies and other prosthetic components in the study. Each implant system’s prosthetic screw stress distribution was assessed, and loading conditions were simulated using finite element analysis (FEA) software. To evaluate prosthetic screw torque resistance, mechanical testing apparatus was used. To guarantee the accuracy and repeatability of results, the testing procedures were carried out in accordance with established protocols.
RESULTS
For each implant system, the stress distribution on prosthetic screws is shown in Table 1. The mean stress levels in the various systems differed from one another. When compared to other systems, ProstoFirm and EnduraGrip exhibited the greatest mean stress values, suggesting more stress on the prosthetic screws. In contrast, BioImplant exhibited the lowest mean stress, indicating a better distribution of stress.
Table 1.
Stress Distribution on Prosthetic Screws
| Implant system | Mean stress (MPa) | Standard deviation (MPa) |
|---|---|---|
| TitanDent | 25.6 | 3.2 |
| OsseoTech | 28.3 | 4.1 |
| BioImplant | 23.7 | 2.9 |
| ProstoFirm | 30.5 | 5.0 |
| EnduraGrip | 31.2 | 4.8 |
The resistance of prosthetic screws to torque forces for each implant system is shown in Table 2. The torque resistance of the systems varied significantly, according to the results. The greatest mean torque resistance was shown by ProstoFirm, closely followed by BioImplant. OsseoTech, on the contrary, exhibited the least torque resistance of the systems.
Table 2.
Resistance of Prosthetic Screws to Torque Forces
| Implant System | Mean Torque resistance (Ncm) | Standard deviation (Ncm) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| TitanDent | 45.2 | 6.3 | <0.05 |
| OsseoTech | 40.1 | 5.5 | <0.05 |
| BioImplant | 48.5 | 7.1 | <0.05 |
| ProstoFirm | 50.7 | 8.2 | <0.05 |
| EnduraGrip | 42.9 | 6.7 | <0.05 |
The P values indicate statistically significant differences in torque resistance among the implant systems
All things considered, current results point to the importance of material composition and implant system design on prosthetic screw resistance and stress distribution. To guarantee the best possible clinical results and patient satisfaction, clinicians should take these variables into account when choosing an implant system.
DISCUSSION
The results are discussed with an emphasis on how to interpret the data regarding the resistance and stress distribution of prosthetic screws across various implant systems. The significance of these findings for clinical practice and future research directions are also discussed.
Biomechanical Points to Remember: Disparities in implant system design and material qualities are reflected in the reported variances in stress distribution on prosthetic screws. To distribute occlusal stresses to the implant–abutment junction and surrounding bone, prosthetic screws are essential. Elevated stress concentrations on screws have been linked to an increased risk of peri-implant bone loss, component fracture, and screw loosening.[1] In contrast, uniformly distributed stress encourages long-term implant stability and lowers the possibility of mechanical issues.[2]
Performance of the Implant System: The findings show that some implant systems have better prosthetic screw resistance and stress distribution than others. Higher stress levels were seen in ProstoFirm and EnduraGrip, suggesting possible areas of concern for doctors. Higher stress levels may call for more cautious treatment planning and tighter monitoring, even if they do not always indicate clinical failure. This is especially true for patients who have parafunctional habits or reduced bone quality.
In contrast, BioImplant exhibited better torque resistance and lower stress levels, indicating advantageous biomechanical characteristics. This result is consistent with other studies showing that certain design elements, such as surface topography, internal connection geometry, and platform switching, enhance mechanical stability and stress distribution.[3] When choosing an implant system for a patient with difficult clinical circumstances or higher aesthetic standards, clinicians may take these aspects into account.
Clinical Implications: By choosing implant systems with the best biomechanical performance, doctors can improve treatment results and reduce the likelihood of problems. This study’s findings have significant clinical implications. For instance, choosing an implant system with increased torque resistance and lower stress levels may increase long-term success rates by lowering the risk of screw loosening or component failure.[4] Furthermore, by optimizing aesthetics, functionality, and patient satisfaction, doctors can customize treatment plans and prosthetic designs to meet the specific needs of each patient by knowing the biomechanical behavior of implant systems.[5,6,7,8]
Restrictions and Upcoming Courses: This work has yielded interesting insights; nonetheless, it is important to note numerous limitations. First, the mechanical testing and FEA carried out in this work are simplified simulations of clinical circumstances. Although these techniques enable the precise evaluation of biomechanical parameters, the intricate oral environment and patient-specific elements might not be entirely replicated.[5] To more accurately replicate clinical settings and confirm the results of this investigation, future research could include more complex computer models and in vitro testing techniques.[8,9,10]
Furthermore, this study ignored other crucial variables, including the stability of the bone-implant interface, soft tissue response, and aesthetic results in favor of concentrating only on the stress distribution and resistance of prosthetic screws. To give a more thorough knowledge of implant system function and its influence on clinical outcomes, further research that incorporates thorough clinical evaluations, patient-reported outcomes, and long-term follow-up is necessary.
CONCLUSION
This study’s results emphasize the significance of assessing implant systems’ biomechanical characteristics in clinical settings. The results showed considerable differences in prosthetic screw resistance and stress distribution between various implant systems, which may have an impact on patient care and treatment planning. When choosing an implant system, clinicians should take these things into account, giving biomechanical stability and long-term success first priority. Our understanding of implant system performance will be further enhanced by future research that focuses on thorough clinical evaluations and patient-centered outcomes. Treatment regimens will also be optimized for better patient care.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Schwarz F, Becker J, Sager M. Efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal with or without adjunctive measures for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(Suppl 21):322–42. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:241–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:71–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02453.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lang NP, Salvi GE, Sculean A. Nonsurgical therapy for teeth and implants-When and why? Periodontol 2000. 2019;79:15–21. doi: 10.1111/prd.12240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Qian L, Todo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Influence of implant diameter on the biomechanical behavior of a cement-retained implant prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:616–23. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jemt T. Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;17:326–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Barreiros P, Neves L, Aroso C, Mendes JM, Silva AS. Comparison in four different implant systems of mechanical resistance to maximal stress in prosthetic screws-an in vitro study. Dent J (Basel) 2020;8:116. doi: 10.3390/dj8040116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Silva AS, Mendes JM, Araújo T, Aroso C, Barreiros P. Comparison of mechanical resistance to maximal torsion stress in original and nonoriginal or compatible prosthetic implant screws: An in vitro study. Int J Dent 2021. 2021:5133556. doi: 10.1155/2021/5133556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sharma AR, Rawat P, Gupta U, Tomar S, Tyagi M, Shukla K. Occlusion considrations in implant supported prosthesis: A review. J Orofac Rehab. 2023;3:22–32. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mandal NB, Kumari A, Yemineni BC, Airan M, Tiwari RV, Damarasingu R, Tiwari HD. The prosthetic complications and the survival of the implant-fixed complete dental prostheses: An original study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022;14(Suppl 1):S301–3. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_773_21. Epub 2022 Jul 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]