Effects of abutment screw preload and preload simulation techniques on dental implant lifetime.
Implants
failure
fatigue
finite element analysis
friction
mechanical testing
Journal
JADA foundational science
ISSN: 2772-414X
Titre abrégé: JADA Found Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918539088106676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
entrez:
27
1
2023
pubmed:
28
1
2023
medline:
28
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate how the predicted implant fatigue lifetime is affected by the loss of connector screw preload and the finite element analysis method used to simulate preload. A dental implant assembly (DI1, Biomet-3i external hex; Zimmer Biomet) was scanned using microcomputed tomography and measured using Mimics software (Materialise) and an optical microscope. Digital replicas were constructed using SolidWorks software (Dassault Systèmes). The material properties were assigned in Abaqus (Dassault Systèmes). An external load was applied at 30° off-axial loading. Eight levels of connector screw preload (range, 0-32 Ncm) were simulated for DI1. This assembly and an additional model (DI2) having a longer and narrower screw were compared regarding their fatigue limits (using fe-safe software [Dassault Systèmes]) for 2 preloading methods: (1) adding preload torque or (2) adding bolt axial tension. The maximum von Mises stresses of DI1 (on the connector screw threads) with and without preload were 439.90 MPa and 587.90 MPa. The predicted fatigue limit was the same for preloads from 100% through 80% of the manufacturer A substantial loss of preload can be accommodated without compromising the fatigue resistance of this dental implant. Computer models should be constructed using torque instead of a bolt axial tension.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
This study aimed to investigate how the predicted implant fatigue lifetime is affected by the loss of connector screw preload and the finite element analysis method used to simulate preload.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A dental implant assembly (DI1, Biomet-3i external hex; Zimmer Biomet) was scanned using microcomputed tomography and measured using Mimics software (Materialise) and an optical microscope. Digital replicas were constructed using SolidWorks software (Dassault Systèmes). The material properties were assigned in Abaqus (Dassault Systèmes). An external load was applied at 30° off-axial loading. Eight levels of connector screw preload (range, 0-32 Ncm) were simulated for DI1. This assembly and an additional model (DI2) having a longer and narrower screw were compared regarding their fatigue limits (using fe-safe software [Dassault Systèmes]) for 2 preloading methods: (1) adding preload torque or (2) adding bolt axial tension.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The maximum von Mises stresses of DI1 (on the connector screw threads) with and without preload were 439.90 MPa and 587.90 MPa. The predicted fatigue limit was the same for preloads from 100% through 80% of the manufacturer
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
A substantial loss of preload can be accommodated without compromising the fatigue resistance of this dental implant. Computer models should be constructed using torque instead of a bolt axial tension.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36704641
doi: 10.1016/j.jfscie.2022.100010
pmc: PMC9873498
mid: NIHMS1862629
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : NIDCR NIH HHS
ID : R01 DE026144
Pays : United States
Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992 Winter;7(4):477-84
pubmed: 1299643
SADJ. 2014 Aug;69(7):316-20
pubmed: 26548212
J Periodontol. 1999 Apr;70(4):449-54
pubmed: 10328659
Dent Mater. 2018 Dec;34(12):1711-1716
pubmed: 30220505
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2017;27(1):25-35
pubmed: 29604947
J Formos Med Assoc. 2016 Sep;115(9):794-800
pubmed: 27013111
J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Dec;31(12):1208-17
pubmed: 15544658
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Nov 1;19(11):1306-1311
pubmed: 30602632
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Jul-Aug;18(4):561-5
pubmed: 12939009
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Jan-Feb;19(1):87-91
pubmed: 14982360
Int J Dent. 2021 Jul 19;2021:3595064
pubmed: 34335769
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Aug;90(2):121-32
pubmed: 12886205
J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Dec;68(6):949-56
pubmed: 1494126
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 01;17(13):
pubmed: 32630294
Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):159-63
pubmed: 11843453
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991 Fall;6(3):270-6
pubmed: 1813395
Materials (Basel). 2021 Sep 24;14(19):
pubmed: 34639935
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0245800
pubmed: 33539392
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Nov;122(5):474.e1-474.e8
pubmed: 31590980
Dent Mater. 2018 Sep;34(9):1299-1309
pubmed: 29921465
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994 Mar-Apr;9(2):169-78
pubmed: 8206552
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Dec;90(6):517-21
pubmed: 14668750