Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses
Identifieur interne : 006180 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 006179; suivant : 006181Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses
Auteurs : T. Ogawa ; S. Dhaliwal ; I. Naert ; A. Mine ; M. Kronstrom ; K. Sasaki ; J. DuyckSource :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2010-07.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Acrylic prosthesis, Acrylic resin, Acrylic resin teeth, Axial forces, Biomat research group, Blackwell publishing, Bone loss, Branemark, Branemark system, Branemark system implants, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Complete arch, Dent, Different models, Different numbers, Different prosthesis materials, Different test conditions, Distal implant, Distal implants, Distribution types, Duyck, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous patients, Fewer implants, Implant, Implant distribution, Implant loading, Implant number, Implant support, Implants loading, Larger implant distribution, Limited implant distribution, Load application, Load distribution, Mandible, Maxillary implants, Mechanical loading, Mental foramina, Naert, Oral implants, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated implants, Perpendicular axes, Polymethylmethacrylate base, Posterior implants, Previous studies, Prosthesis, Prosthesis material, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic dentistry, Resultant forces, Several variables, Statistical analyses, Strain gauge, Strain gauge measurement, Stress distribution, Test condition, Test conditions, Titanium, Titanium framework prosthesis, Titanium prosthesis, Vander sloten, Vivo study.
- Teeft :
- Acrylic prosthesis, Acrylic resin, Acrylic resin teeth, Axial forces, Biomat research group, Blackwell publishing, Bone loss, Branemark, Branemark system, Branemark system implants, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Complete arch, Dent, Different models, Different numbers, Different prosthesis materials, Different test conditions, Distal implant, Distal implants, Distribution types, Duyck, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous patients, Fewer implants, Implant, Implant distribution, Implant loading, Implant number, Implant support, Implants loading, Larger implant distribution, Limited implant distribution, Load application, Load distribution, Mandible, Maxillary implants, Mechanical loading, Mental foramina, Naert, Oral implants, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated implants, Perpendicular axes, Polymethylmethacrylate base, Posterior implants, Previous studies, Prosthesis, Prosthesis material, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic dentistry, Resultant forces, Several variables, Statistical analyses, Strain gauge, Strain gauge measurement, Stress distribution, Test condition, Test conditions, Titanium, Titanium framework prosthesis, Titanium prosthesis, Vander sloten, Vivo study.
Abstract
Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all‐acrylic, one fibre‐reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre‐reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (P < 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (P < 0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (P < 0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBALe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title><author><name sortKey="Ogawa, T" sort="Ogawa, T" uniqKey="Ogawa T" first="T." last="Ogawa">T. Ogawa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Dhaliwal, S" sort="Dhaliwal, S" uniqKey="Dhaliwal S" first="S." last="Dhaliwal">S. Dhaliwal</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, I" sort="Naert, I" uniqKey="Naert I" first="I." last="Naert">I. Naert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mine, A" sort="Mine, A" uniqKey="Mine A" first="A." last="Mine">A. Mine</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kronstrom, M" sort="Kronstrom, M" uniqKey="Kronstrom M" first="M." last="Kronstrom">M. Kronstrom</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sasaki, K" sort="Sasaki, K" uniqKey="Sasaki K" first="K." last="Sasaki">K. Sasaki</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Duyck, J" sort="Duyck, J" uniqKey="Duyck J" first="J." last="Duyck">J. Duyck</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006180</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006180</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title><author><name sortKey="Ogawa, T" sort="Ogawa, T" uniqKey="Ogawa T" first="T." last="Ogawa">T. Ogawa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Dhaliwal, S" sort="Dhaliwal, S" uniqKey="Dhaliwal S" first="S." last="Dhaliwal">S. Dhaliwal</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, I" sort="Naert, I" uniqKey="Naert I" first="I." last="Naert">I. Naert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mine, A" sort="Mine, A" uniqKey="Mine A" first="A." last="Mine">A. Mine</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kronstrom, M" sort="Kronstrom, M" uniqKey="Kronstrom M" first="M." last="Kronstrom">M. Kronstrom</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sasaki, K" sort="Sasaki, K" uniqKey="Sasaki K" first="K." last="Sasaki">K. Sasaki</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Duyck, J" sort="Duyck, J" uniqKey="Duyck J" first="J." last="Duyck">J. Duyck</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">37</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="525">525</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="531">531</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-07">2010-07</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Acrylic prosthesis</term><term>Acrylic resin</term><term>Acrylic resin teeth</term><term>Axial forces</term><term>Biomat research group</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark system</term><term>Branemark system implants</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Complete arch</term><term>Dent</term><term>Different models</term><term>Different numbers</term><term>Different prosthesis materials</term><term>Different test conditions</term><term>Distal implant</term><term>Distal implants</term><term>Distribution types</term><term>Duyck</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Fewer implants</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant distribution</term><term>Implant loading</term><term>Implant number</term><term>Implant support</term><term>Implants loading</term><term>Larger implant distribution</term><term>Limited implant distribution</term><term>Load application</term><term>Load distribution</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxillary implants</term><term>Mechanical loading</term><term>Mental foramina</term><term>Naert</term><term>Oral implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Perpendicular axes</term><term>Polymethylmethacrylate base</term><term>Posterior implants</term><term>Previous studies</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis material</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Resultant forces</term><term>Several variables</term><term>Statistical analyses</term><term>Strain gauge</term><term>Strain gauge measurement</term><term>Stress distribution</term><term>Test condition</term><term>Test conditions</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium framework prosthesis</term><term>Titanium prosthesis</term><term>Vander sloten</term><term>Vivo study</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Acrylic prosthesis</term><term>Acrylic resin</term><term>Acrylic resin teeth</term><term>Axial forces</term><term>Biomat research group</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark system</term><term>Branemark system implants</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Complete arch</term><term>Dent</term><term>Different models</term><term>Different numbers</term><term>Different prosthesis materials</term><term>Different test conditions</term><term>Distal implant</term><term>Distal implants</term><term>Distribution types</term><term>Duyck</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Fewer implants</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant distribution</term><term>Implant loading</term><term>Implant number</term><term>Implant support</term><term>Implants loading</term><term>Larger implant distribution</term><term>Limited implant distribution</term><term>Load application</term><term>Load distribution</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxillary implants</term><term>Mechanical loading</term><term>Mental foramina</term><term>Naert</term><term>Oral implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Perpendicular axes</term><term>Polymethylmethacrylate base</term><term>Posterior implants</term><term>Previous studies</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis material</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Resultant forces</term><term>Several variables</term><term>Statistical analyses</term><term>Strain gauge</term><term>Strain gauge measurement</term><term>Stress distribution</term><term>Test condition</term><term>Test conditions</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium framework prosthesis</term><term>Titanium prosthesis</term><term>Vander sloten</term><term>Vivo study</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all‐acrylic, one fibre‐reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre‐reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (P < 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (P < 0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (P < 0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>prosthesis material</json:string><json:string>naert</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>blackwell publishing</json:string><json:string>duyck</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>distal implant</json:string><json:string>implant number</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>test condition</json:string><json:string>implant loading</json:string><json:string>vander sloten</json:string><json:string>stress distribution</json:string><json:string>test conditions</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>axial forces</json:string><json:string>acrylic prosthesis</json:string><json:string>distribution types</json:string><json:string>load application</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>mechanical loading</json:string><json:string>several variables</json:string><json:string>statistical analyses</json:string><json:string>different test conditions</json:string><json:string>titanium prosthesis</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>branemark system</json:string><json:string>implant distribution</json:string><json:string>different prosthesis materials</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>distal implants</json:string><json:string>oral implants</json:string><json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandible</json:string><json:string>different numbers</json:string><json:string>resultant forces</json:string><json:string>larger implant distribution</json:string><json:string>load distribution</json:string><json:string>maxillary implants</json:string><json:string>mental foramina</json:string><json:string>limited implant distribution</json:string><json:string>implant support</json:string><json:string>posterior implants</json:string><json:string>titanium framework prosthesis</json:string><json:string>acrylic resin teeth</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>polymethylmethacrylate base</json:string><json:string>fewer implants</json:string><json:string>strain gauge measurement</json:string><json:string>different models</json:string><json:string>branemark system implants</json:string><json:string>previous studies</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>complete arch</json:string><json:string>acrylic resin</json:string><json:string>biomat research group</json:string><json:string>perpendicular axes</json:string><json:string>vivo study</json:string><json:string>strain gauge</json:string><json:string>implants loading</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>T. OGAWA</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</json:string><json:string>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>S. DHALIWAL</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>I. NAERT</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>A. MINE</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>M. KRONSTROM</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>K. SASAKI</name><affiliations><json:string>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J. DUYCK</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>distribution of implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>edentulous mandible</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fixed dental prosthesis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>strain gauge</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>the number of implants</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOOR2076</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-WR65MMB1-4</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all‐acrylic, one fibre‐reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre‐reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (P > 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (P > 0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (P > 0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.241</score><pdfWordCount>3565</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>22363</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>223</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1512</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title><pmid><json:string>20236236</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string></publisherId><volume>37</volume><issue>7</issue><pages><first>525</first><last>531</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2010</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string><json:string>Tohoku University</json:string><json:string>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada</json:string><json:string>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry</json:string><json:string>Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co.</json:string><json:string>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</json:string><json:string>StickTech Ltd, Turku, Finland</json:string><json:string>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA The</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName><json:string>Sendai</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Tokyo</json:string><json:string>Leuven</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Belgium</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-WR65MMB1-4</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x</json:string></doi><id>C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2010-07"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title><title level="a" type="short">IMPACT OF SEVERAL VARIABLES ON IMPLANTS LOADING</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">T.</forename><surname>OGAWA</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation><note type="foot">
1First and second author equally contributed.</note></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">S.</forename><surname>DHALIWAL</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada<address><country key="CA"></country></address></affiliation><note type="foot">
1First and second author equally contributed.</note></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">I.</forename><surname>NAERT</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">A.</forename><surname>MINE</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">M.</forename><surname>KRONSTROM</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">K.</forename><surname>SASAKI</surname></persName><affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0006"><persName><forename type="first">J.</forename><surname>DUYCK</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-WR65MMB1-4</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOOR2076</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR2076.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jor.2010.37.issue-7</idno><idno type="product">JOOR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">37</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="525">525</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="531">531</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-07"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Summary </hi> The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all‐acrylic, one fibre‐reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre‐reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>< 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (<hi rend="italic">P </hi><<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (<hi rend="italic">P </hi><<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">distribution of implants</term><term xml:id="k2">edentulous mandible</term><term xml:id="k3">fixed dental prosthesis</term><term xml:id="k4">strain gauge</term><term xml:id="k5">the number of implants</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi><issn type="print">0305-182X</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="07007"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.2010.37.issue-7</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="37">37</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="7">7</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-07">July 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR2076"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-03-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-06-02"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.6 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-06-03"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="525">525</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="531">531</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Joke Duyck, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology, and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B‐3000 Leuven, Belgium.
E‐mail: <email>Joke.Duyck@uz.kuleuven.be</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR2076.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 30 January 2010</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title><title type="shortAuthors">T. OGAWA <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">IMPACT OF SEVERAL VARIABLES ON IMPLANTS LOADING</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2" noteRef="#fn1"><personName><givenNames>T.</givenNames><familyName>OGAWA</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a3" noteRef="#fn1"><personName><givenNames>S.</givenNames><familyName>DHALIWAL</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>I.</givenNames><familyName>NAERT</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>A.</givenNames><familyName>MINE</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>M.</givenNames><familyName>KRONSTROM</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>K.</givenNames><familyName>SASAKI</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr7" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>J.</givenNames><familyName>DUYCK</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="JP"><unparsedAffiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="CA"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">distribution of implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">edentulous mandible</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">fixed dental prosthesis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">strain gauge</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">the number of implants</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Summary </b> The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all‐acrylic, one fibre‐reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre‐reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (<i>P </i>< 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (<i>P </i><<i> </i>0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (<i>P </i><<i> </i>0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1" numbered="no"><p><sup>1</sup>First and second author equally contributed.</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>IMPACT OF SEVERAL VARIABLES ON IMPLANTS LOADING</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">T.</namePart><namePart type="family">OGAWA</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</affiliation><affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</affiliation><description>1First and second author equally contributed.</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S.</namePart><namePart type="family">DHALIWAL</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada</affiliation><description>1First and second author equally contributed.</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">I.</namePart><namePart type="family">NAERT</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A.</namePart><namePart type="family">MINE</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">KRONSTROM</namePart><affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">K.</namePart><namePart type="family">SASAKI</namePart><affiliation>Division of Advanced Prosthetic Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.</namePart><namePart type="family">DUYCK</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, K.U.Leuven, Belgium</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-07</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 30 January 2010</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate axial forces and bending moments (BMs) on implants supporting a complete arch fixed implant supported prosthesis with respect to number and distribution of the implants and type of prosthesis material. Seven oral Brånemark implants with a diameter of 3.75 mm and a length of 13 and 7 mm (short distal implant) were placed in an edentulous composite mandible used as the experimental model. One all‐acrylic, one fibre‐reinforced acrylic, and one milled titanium framework prosthesis were made. A 50 N vertical load was applied on the extension 10 mm distal from the most posterior implant. Axial forces and BMs were measured by calculating signals from three strain gauges attached to each of the abutments. The load was measured using three different models with varying numbers of supporting implants (3, 4 and 5), three models with different implant distribution conditions (small, medium and large) and three models with different prosthesis materials (titanium, acrylic and fibre‐reinforced acrylic). Maximum BMs were highest when prostheses were supported by three implants compared to four and five implants (P < 0.001). The BMs were significantly influenced by the implant distribution, in that the smallest distribution induced the highest BMs (P < 0.001). Maximum BMs were lowest with the titanium prosthesis (P < 0.01). The resultant forces on implants were significantly associated with the implant number and distribution and the prosthesis material.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>distribution of implants</topic><topic>edentulous mandible</topic><topic>fixed dental prosthesis</topic><topic>strain gauge</topic><topic>the number of implants</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0305-182X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>37</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>7</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>525</start><end>531</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-WR65MMB1-4</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR2076</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 006180 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 006180 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C4CA3FB101462C63D91E377CBD85A9D0408F6FBA
|texte= Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |