4.1 Article

Mechanical Evaluation of an Implant-Abutment Self-Locking Taper Connection: Finite Element Analysis and Experimental Tests

出版社

QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2058

关键词

fatigue testing; finite element analysis; Morse taper connection; self-locking tapered connection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the mechanical properties and behavior of a self-locking taper connection with three different techniques: three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA), ultimate failure loading, and cyclic loading analysis. Materials and Methods: The implant-abutment complex was embedded vertically in the center of an acrylic resin support block (Young's modulus > 3 GPa). All materials used in this study were assumed to be homogenous and isotropic, but while the resin was assumed to be linearly elastic, the titanium was assumed to have a multilinear behavior to better represent the implant system in its plastic phase and compare as closely as possible the numeric simulation with the experimental tests. An 800-N 30-degree off-axis load was applied to the occlusal surface of the abutment. In addition to the FEA, static and dynamic tests were carried out. Results: The greatest von Mises stresses were concentrated in the coronal portion of the abutment's tapered connection, while at the implant neck they were lower and less extensive than the abutment ones. Experimental results confirmed the FEA findings, in which the structural limit of the system was reached, with permanent deformation of the abutment that exceeded a predefined limit, rather than fracture. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the reported analyses, these static and dynamic tests appear to supply congruent results, thus allowing evaluation of the mechanical behavior of a self-locking tapered-connection implant system. High resistance to an off-axis load was exhibited, exceeding that usually offered by screw-retained implant systems, thus indicating good stability of the implant-abutment connection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据