Mechanical Evaluation of 4 Different Implant Design Systems | OMICS International | Abstract

Journal of Dental Science and Medicine
Open Access

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Research Article

Mechanical Evaluation of 4 Different Implant Design Systems

Torrealba Y1*, Lee H2, Passos S1, Nassar U3 and Pedroza J3

1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton - Canada

2Undergraduate student of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton - Canada

3Advanced Dental Implant Institute in Puerto Rico, Department of Dental Research, School of Dental Medicine, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan – Puerto Rico, USA

*Corresponding Author:
Torrealba Y
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry
Room 5-503, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6G 1C9
Tel: 780-492-753
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: December 19, 2016; Accepted Date: December 27, 2016; Published Date: January 10, 2017

Citation: Torrealba Y, Lee H, Passos S, Nassar U, Pedroza J (2017) Mechanical Evaluation of 4 Different Implant Design Systems. Dent Implants Dentures 2:114. doi:10.4172/2572-4835.1000114

Copyright: © 2017 Torrealba Y, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Purpose: The aims of this study were to: 1. Compare the fracture strengths of four different implant systems, and 2. Evaluate the failure mode of the implants. Materials and methods: A total of eighty-eight (n=88) screw implants were tested. Forty-four for compressive strength and forty-four were tested for fatigue. Each implant body were inserted into a 30 degree holding device and adapted to be used in the BOSE 3330 Electro Force Testing System. A metal sphere was placed in the contact point of the implants (ISO 14801). The compression load was applied to each specimen at a rate of 0.02 inch per minute until failure. For the fatigue testing the step-stress accelerated testing at 17 Hz with 3 increment stages of 300.000 cycles each was performed. The fracture surface was evaluated by X400 Olympus microscopy. Discussion: The failure of the Integrity Tapered Implants -1 and -2 piece abutment connection was an identical combined bending of the implant-abutment Connection. Conclusion: The Integrity implant-2 pieces implant-abutment connection presented a higher resistance value to lateral compressive loads compared to the others implant-abutment connections.