Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Torx connection

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
10 pages, 2368 KB  
Article
Fracture and Fatigue of Dental Implants Fixtures and Abutments with a Novel Internal Connection Design: An In Vitro Pilot Study Comparing Three Different Dental Implant Systems
by Sung-Woon On, Sang-Min Yi, In-Young Park, Soo-Hwan Byun and Byoung-Eun Yang
J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13(4), 239; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040239 - 14 Nov 2022
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 4662
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical behaviors of three dental implant fixtures with different abutment connection designs. Three implant systems were studied: the control (BLX implant), test group 1 (TORX++ implant), and test group 2 (IU implant). Three samples [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical behaviors of three dental implant fixtures with different abutment connection designs. Three implant systems were studied: the control (BLX implant), test group 1 (TORX++ implant), and test group 2 (IU implant). Three samples from each group were subjected to static compression to fracture tests to determine the maximum fracture load, and twelve samples were exposed to fatigue tests that measured how many cycles the implants could endure before deformation or fracture. Detailed images of the implant–abutment assemblies were obtained using micro-computed tomography imaging, and fractured or deformed areas were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The mean maximum breaking loads of 578.45 ± 42.46 N, 793.26 ± 57.43 N, and 862.30 ± 74.25 N were obtained for the BLX, TORX++, and IU implants, respectively. All samples in the three groups withstood 5 × 106 cycles at 50% of the nominal peak value, and different fracture points were observed. All abutment connection designs showed suitable mechanical properties for intraoral use. Microscopic differences in the fracture patterns may be due to the differences in the fixture design or abutment connection, and mechanical complications could be prevented by lowering the overload reaching the implant or preventing peri-implantitis. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop