A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Influence of fixation mode and superstructure span upon strain development of implant fixed partial dentures. | LitMetric

Purpose: Implant-borne fixed partial dentures (FPDs) should fit passively in order to avoid complications ranging from screw loosening to loss of osseointegration. The aim of this study was to measure the strain development of three-unit and five-unit screw- and cement-retained implant-supported FPDs. Additionally, the influence of the parameters retention mechanism and FPD span were evaluated.

Materials And Methods: Three Straumann implants were anchored in a measurement model based on a real-life patient situation and strain gauges (SGs) were fixed mesially and distally adjacent to the implants and on the pontics of the superstructures. During cement setting and screw fixation of 40 implant FPDs (10 samples from each group: three-unit cementable; five-unit cementable; three-unit screw-retained; five-unit screw-retained), strain development was recorded. For statistical analysis, multivariate two-sample tests were performed with the level of significance set at p= 0.1.

Results: The mean strain values for the four FPD groups at the different SG sites ranged from 26.0 to 637.6 microm/m. When comparing the four groups, no significant differences in strain magnitude could be detected. Similarly, a comparison of the two FPD spans revealed no significant difference (p= 0.18 for cementable FPDs; p= 0.22 for screw-retained FPDs). A comparison of the two fixation modes also revealed no significant difference (p= 0.67 for three-unit FPDs; p= 0.25 for five-unit FPDs).

Conclusion: FPD span and retention mechanism appear to have only a minor influence on strain development in implant FPDs. As implant-supported restorations have proven to be successful over time, the question arises as to whether an "absolute" passive fit is a prerequisite for successful implant restorations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00236.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

strain development
16
development implant
8
fixed partial
8
partial dentures
8
retention mechanism
8
fpd span
8
implant fpds
8
revealed difference
8
strain
7
fpds
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!