Stress distribution pattern of screw-retained restorations with segmented vs. non-segmented abutments: A finite element analysis

  • Aalaei S
  • Rajabi Naraki Z
  • Nematollahi F
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background. Screw-retained restorations are favored in some clinical situations such as limited inter-occlusal spaces. This study was designed to compare stresses developed in the peri-implant bone in two different types of screw-retained restorations (segmented vs. non-segmented abutment) using a finite element model. Methods. An implant, 4.1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length, was placed in the first molar site of a mandibular model with 1 mm of cortical bone on the buccal and lingual sides. Segmented and non-segmented screw abutments with their crowns were placed on the simulated implant in each model. After loading (100 N, axial and 45° non-axial), von Mises stress was recorded using ANSYS software, version 12.0.1. Results. The maximum stresses in the non-segmented abutment screw were less than those of segmented abutment (87 vs. 100, and 375 vs. 430 MPa under axial and non-axial loading, respectively). The maximum stresses in the peri-implant bone for the model with segmented abutment were less than those of non-segmented ones (21 vs. 24 MPa, and 31 vs. 126 MPa under vertical and angular loading, respectively). In addition, the micro-strain of peri-implant bone for the segmented abutment restoration was less than that of non-segmented abutment. Conclusion. Under axial and non-axial loadings, non-segmented abutment showed less stress concentration in the screw, while there was less stress and strain in the peri-implant bone in the segmented abutment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Aalaei, S., Rajabi Naraki, Z., Nematollahi, F., Beyabanaki, E., & Shahrokhi Rad, A. (2017). Stress distribution pattern of screw-retained restorations with segmented vs. non-segmented abutments: A finite element analysis. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects, 11(3), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2017.027

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free