We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 2     15. Mar. 2008
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 2  (15.03.2008)

Page 253-262, PubMed:18548921


Load Fatigue Performance of Four Implant-Abutment Interface Designs: Effect of Torque Level and Implant System
Quek, H. C. / Tan, Keson B. / Nicholls, Jack I.
Purpose: Biomechanical load-fatigue performance data on single-tooth implant systems with different implant-abutment interface designs is lacking in the literature. This study evaluated the load fatigue performance of 4 implant-abutment interface designs (Brånemark-CeraOne; 3i Osseotite-STA abutment; Replace Select-Easy abutment; and Lifecore Stage-1-COC abutment system). The number of load cycles to fatigue failure of 4 implant-abutment designs was tested with a custom rotational load fatigue machine. The effect of increasing and decreasing the tightening torque by 20% respectively on the load fatigue performance was also investigated.
Materials and Methods: Three different tightening torque levels (recommended torque, -20% recommended torque, +20% recommended torque) were applied to the 4 implant systems. There were 12 test groups with 5 samples in each group. The rotational load fatigue machine subjected specimens to a sinusoidally applied 35 Ncm bending moment at a test frequency of 14 Hz. The number of cycles to failure was recorded. A cutoff of 5 3 106 cycles was applied as an upper limit.
Results: There were 2 implant failures and 1 abutment screw failure in the Brånemark group. Five abutment screw failures and 4 implant failures was recorded for the 3i system. The Replace Select system had 1 implant failure. Five cone screw failures were noted for the Lifecore system. Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant difference in load cycles to failure for the 4 different implant-abutment systems torqued at recommended torque level. A statistically significant difference was found between the -20% torque group and the +20% torque group (P < .05) for the 3i system.
Conclusions: Load fatigue performance and failure location is system specific and related to the design characteristics of the implant-abutment combination. It appeared that if the implant-abutment interface was maintained, load fatigue failure would occur at the weakest point of the implant. It is important to use the torque level recommended by the manufacturer.

Keywords: abutment screw failure, implant-abutment interface, load fatigue, preload, torque