Display options
Cite
Kanneganti KC, Vinnakota DN, Pottem SR, et al. Comparative effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on preloaded abutment screw using three-dimensional finite element analysis: An . J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(2):161-167doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_219_17.
Kanneganti, K. C., Vinnakota, D. N., Pottem, S. R., & Pulagam, M. (2018). Comparative effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on preloaded abutment screw using three-dimensional finite element analysis: An . Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 18(2), 161-167. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_219_17
Kanneganti, Krishna Chaitanya, et al. "Comparative effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on preloaded abutment screw using three-dimensional finite element analysis: An ." Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society vol. 18,2 (2018): 161-167. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_219_17
Kanneganti KC, Vinnakota DN, Pottem SR, Pulagam M. Comparative effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on preloaded abutment screw using three-dimensional finite element analysis: An . J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Apr-Jun;18(2):161-167. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_219_17. PMID: 29692570; PMCID: PMC5903180.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Apr-Jun;18(2):161-167. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_219_17.

Comparative effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on preloaded abutment screw using three-dimensional finite element analysis: An .

Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Krishna Chaitanya Kanneganti, Dileep Nag Vinnakota, Srinivas Rao Pottem, Mahesh Pulagam

Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.

PMID: 29692570 PMCID: PMC5903180 DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_219_17

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on screw loosening (SL) of preloaded abutment using three dimensional (3D) finite element analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D models of implants (conical connection with hex/trilobed connections), abutments (straight/angulated), abutment screws (short/long), and crown and bone were designed using software Parametric Technology Corporation Creo and assembled to form 8 simulations. After discretization, the contact stresses developed for 150 N vertical and 100 N oblique load applications were analyzed, using ABAQUS. By assessing damage initiation and shortest fatigue load on screw threads, the SL for 2.5, 5, and 10 lakh cyclic loads were estimated, using fe-safe program. The obtained values were compared for influence of connection design, abutment angulation, and screw length.

RESULTS: In straight abutment models, conical connection showed more damage (14.3%-72.3%) when compared to trilobe (10.1%-65.73%) at 2.5, 5, and 10 lakh cycles for both vertical and oblique loads, whereas in angulated abutments, trilobe (16.1%-76.9%) demonstrated more damage compared to conical (13.5%-70%). Irrespective of the connection type and abutment angulation, short screws showed more percentage of damage compared to long screws.

CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests selecting appropriate implant-abutment connection based on the abutment angulation, as well as preferring long screws with more number of threads for effective preload retention by the screws.

Keywords: Dental; implant; preload; screw

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Dec;90(6):517-21 - PubMed
  2. J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Jul;86(1):24-32 - PubMed
  3. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):551-60 - PubMed
  4. Implant Dent. 2005 Mar;14(1):77-81 - PubMed
  5. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Mar-Apr;12(2):237-42 - PubMed
  6. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Feb;91(2):144-50 - PubMed
  7. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jan-Feb;26(1):45-55 - PubMed
  8. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 Jan-Feb;16(1):123-7 - PubMed
  9. Br Dent J. 2007 Feb 10;202(3):123-9 - PubMed
  10. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Apr;40(2):50-60 - PubMed
  11. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2011 Sep 01;12(5):356-60 - PubMed
  12. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Apr;91(4):319-25 - PubMed
  13. J Prosthet Dent. 1995 Jul;74(1):51-5 - PubMed
  14. Implant Dent. 2013 Jun;22(3):263-7 - PubMed
  15. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991 Spring;6(1):29-36 - PubMed
  16. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Dec;90(6):539-46 - PubMed
  17. Dent Mater J. 2009 Jul;28(4):373-81 - PubMed
  18. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan-Jun;6(1):3-8 - PubMed
  19. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Nov-Dec;22(6):879-85 - PubMed
  20. J Dent. 1993 Aug;21(4):203-8 - PubMed
  21. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Oct-Dec;16(4):359-365 - PubMed
  22. J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Jun;71(6):592-9 - PubMed
  23. Dent Clin North Am. 1998 Jan;42(1):71-89 - PubMed
  24. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Jul-Aug;11(4):450-5 - PubMed
  25. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Jul-Aug;14 (4):516-20 - PubMed

Publication Types