미니 임플란트 직경에 따른 피로파절강도의 비교 연구 = Comparison of fatigue fracture strength by fixture diameter of mini implants

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: This study was conducted to obtain difference in fracture strength according to the diameter of one-body O-ring-type of mini implant fixture, to determine the resistance of mini implant to masticatory pressure, and to examine whether overdenture using O-ring type mini implant is clinically usable to maxillary and mandibular edentulous patients. Materials and methods: For this study, 13 mm long one body O-ring-type mini implants of different diameters (2.0 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm) (Dentis, Daegu, Korea) were prepared, 5 for each diameter. The sample was placed at 30 from the horizontal surface on the universal testing machine, and off-axis loading was applied until permanent deformation occurred and the load was taken as maximum compressive strength. The mean value of the 5 samples was calculated, and the compressive strength of implant fixture was compared according to diameter. In addition, we prepared 3 samples for each diameter, and applied loading equal to 80%, 60% and 40% of the compressive strength until fracture occurred. Then, we measured the cycle number on fracture and analyzed fatigue fracture for each diameter. Additionally, we measured the cycle number on fracture that occurred when a load of 43 N, which is the average masticatory force of complete denture, was applied. The difference on compressive strength between each group was tested statistically using one-way ANOVA test. Results: Compressive strength according to the diameter of mini implant was 101.5 ± 14.6 N, 149 ± 6.1 N and 276.0 ± 13.4 N, respectively, for diameters 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm. In the results of fatigue fracture test at 43 N, fracture did not occur until 2×106 cycles at diameter 2.0 mm, and until 5×106 cycles at 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm. Conclusion: Compressive strength increased significantly with increasing diameter of mini implant. In the results of fatigue fracture test conducted under the average masticatory force of complete denture, fracture did not occur at any of the three diameters. All of the three diameters are usable for supporting overdenture in maxillary and mandibular edentulous patients, but considering that the highest masticatory force of complete denture is 157 N, caution should be used in case diameter 2.0 mm or 2.5 mm is used.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

연구 목적: 일체형의 o-ring type 미니 임플란트 고정체의 직경에 따른 파절강도의 차이를 비교하고자 한다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 길이 13 mm의 one body o-ring type의 미니 임플란트(Dentis, Daegu, Korea)를 직경2.0, 2.5, 3.0 mm 각각 5개씩 준비하였다. Instron universal testing machine 에 수직면에서 30도 각도로 샘플을 위치시키고 off-axis loading을 가하여 영구변형이 일어난 하중 값을 파절강도로 하고 5개의 시편의 평균을 구하여 각 직경에 따른 임플란트의 고정체의 파절강도를 비교하였다. 또한, 각 직경마다 3개의 시편을 준비하고 동적하중 피로 시험기를 이용하여, 파절이 발생할 때까지 파절강도의 80%, 60%, 40%의 loading 을 가하여 파절되는 cycle수를 측정하여 각 직경의 피로 파절을 분석하였다. 추가적으로 총의치의 평균 저작력인 43 N의 하중을 가하여 파절되는 cycle 수를 측정하였다. 각 군간의 차이를 검증하기 위해서 일원분산분석(one-way ANOVA test)을 시행하였고, 통계처리는 SPSS ver.12 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) 을 이용하여 실시하였다. 결과: 직경 3.0 mm 의 미니 임플란트는 평균 276.0 ± 13.4 N의 압축력을 받았을 때 영구 변형이 일어났고 직경 2.5 mm 미니 임플란트가 149.0 ± 6.1 N, 2.0 mm 미니 임플란트가 101.5 ± 14.6 N일 때 영구 변형이 일어났다. 각 군간의 파절강도에는 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.001). 총의치의 평균 저작력 하중에서 실시한 피로 파절 실험 결과, 세직경 모두 5×106 cycle까지 파절이 일어나지 않았다. 결론: 미니 임플란트의 정적 하중 하에서 최대 압축강도는 직경이 증가할수록 유의적으로 증가하였다. 최대 압축강도는 세 직경 모두 총의치의 평균 저작력 보다는 크나 최대 교합력보다는 직경 3.0 mm에서만 크게 나타났다. 총의치의 평균 저작력 하중에서 실시한 피로 파절 실험 결과, 세 직경 모두 파절이 일어나지 않았다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Barber HD, "The role of the small diameter implant: a preliminary report on the mini implant system" 15 : 1390-1392, 1994

2 Allum SR, "The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study" 19 : 553-559, 2008

3 Binon PP, "The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability" 9 : 511-519, 1996

4 Cho YS, "The comparison of compression strength of the smallest implant various diameter mini-implants" Yonsei University School of Dentistry 2008

5 Davarpanah M, "Small-diameter implants: indications and contraindications" 12 : 186-194, 2000

6 Albrektsson T, "Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man" 52 : 155-170, 1981

7 Bulard RA, "Multi-clinic evaluation using mini-dental implants for long-term denture stabilization: a preliminary biometric evaluation" 26 : 892-897, 2005

8 Shatkin TE, "Mini dental implants for long-term fixed and removable prosthetics: a retrospective analysis of 2514 implants placed over a five-year period" 28 : 92-99, 2007

9 Buser D, "Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants" 8 : 161-172, 1997

10 Cho SC, "Immediate loading of narrow-diameter implants with overdentures in severely atrophic mandibles" 19 : 167-174, 2007

11 Tagger Green N, "Fracture of dental implants: literature review and report of a case" 11 : 137-143, 2002

12 Park WJ, "Fatigue fracture of different dental implant system under cyclic loading" 대한치과보철학회 47 (47): 424-434, 2009

13 Huang HM, "Evaluation of loading conditions on fatigue-failed implants by fracture surface analysis" 20 : 854-859, 2005

14 Kanie T, "Comparison of the mechanical properties of 2 prosthetic mini-implants" 13 : 251-256, 2004

15 Zinsli B, "Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study" 19 : 92-99, 2004

16 Michael CG, "Biting strength and chewing forces in complete denture wearers" 63 : 549-553, 1990