TY - JOUR
T1 - Bone microstrain values of 1-piece and 2-piece implants subjected to mechanical loading
AU - Harel, Noga
AU - Eshkol-Yogev, Inbar
AU - Piek, Dana
AU - Livne, Shiri
AU - Lavi, David
AU - Ormianer, Zeev
PY - 2013/6
Y1 - 2013/6
N2 - PURPOSE:: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the strain levels in peri-implant bone as generated by 1-piece (1P) and 2-piece (2P) implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: The implants (1P and 2P) were placed into bovine bone according to the manufacturerÊs protocol. Four linear strain gauges were placed around each implant neck and apex. Each model was loaded in static loading by a material testing machine in ascending forces ranging from 20 to 120 N. Microstrains (μ[Latin Small Letter Open E]) generated in the surrounding bone were measured by a strain gauge and recorded. RESULTS:: Recorded microstrains were significantly higher for 1P implants than for 2P implants. Average recorded microstrain values were significantly lower in the neck (71.6 and 17.3 μs) compared with the apical (132 and 60 μs) regions of 1P and 2P implants, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:: Within the limitations of this study, highest microstrains were generated in apical regions regardless of implant design, but the 2P implant ap-peared to provide a stress-damping effect in both the cervical and apical regions compared with the 1P implant.
AB - PURPOSE:: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the strain levels in peri-implant bone as generated by 1-piece (1P) and 2-piece (2P) implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: The implants (1P and 2P) were placed into bovine bone according to the manufacturerÊs protocol. Four linear strain gauges were placed around each implant neck and apex. Each model was loaded in static loading by a material testing machine in ascending forces ranging from 20 to 120 N. Microstrains (μ[Latin Small Letter Open E]) generated in the surrounding bone were measured by a strain gauge and recorded. RESULTS:: Recorded microstrains were significantly higher for 1P implants than for 2P implants. Average recorded microstrain values were significantly lower in the neck (71.6 and 17.3 μs) compared with the apical (132 and 60 μs) regions of 1P and 2P implants, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:: Within the limitations of this study, highest microstrains were generated in apical regions regardless of implant design, but the 2P implant ap-peared to provide a stress-damping effect in both the cervical and apical regions compared with the 1P implant.
KW - bone
KW - microstrain 1-piece implant
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878898299&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182926199
DO - 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182926199
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 23615662
AN - SCOPUS:84878898299
SN - 1056-6163
VL - 22
SP - 277
EP - 281
JO - The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist
JF - The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist
IS - 3
ER -