Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Implant fracture under dynamic fatigue loading: influence of embedded angle and depth of implant

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between implant fracture under cyclic-fatigue loading at different embedding angles, embedding depths, and loading forces. Twenty-four cylinder-type implants 3.3 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length were used. Test specimens were 30 mm3 resin blocks with one surfaces inclined at angles of either 5°, 10°, 15° and 20° and embedded vertically with implants at depths of either 5 or 10 mm to the these surfaces. A straight abutment was connected to the implant and cut to 5 mm in length, and a hemispherical crown 5 mm in diameter and 7 mm in length was cast with a 12 % gold–silver–palladium alloy and cemented onto the abutment. Each specimen was mounted onto a fatigue loading device to apply repeated vertical loads of 294, 392, and 490 N to the coronal edge of the crown 60 times per min until reaching 100,000 cycles. For each respective specimen, we recorded the combined conditions of embedding and loading forces and the number of loading cycles until fracture, and then observed the fracture sites microscopically. The number of loading cycles until implant fracture tended to decrease in proportion to increased loading forces and embedded angles, and decreased embedded depths. Implant fracture was observed at angles of inclination over 10°. For specimens with an implant embedded at a depth of 5 mm, almost all fractures occurred at the center of the implant body; however, for those embedded at a depth of 10 mm, fractures occurred at the interface between the implant body and the abutment. These results demonstrate that implant fracture is associated with the loading axis, the amount of loading, and the embedded depth of the implant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemt T. Failure and complications in 391 consecutive inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6:270–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lekholm U, Van Steenberghe D, Herrmann I, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9:627–35.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated implants: the Toronto study. Part III: problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:185–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goodacre CJ, Bernar G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:121–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Green NT, Machtei EE, Horwitz J, Peled M. Fracture of dental implants: literature review and report of a case. Implant Dent. 2002;11:137–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balshi T. An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:660–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(Suppl 1):156–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK. Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:662–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors—a comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:542–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steinebrunner L, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:1276–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Japan Industrial Standard. Zinc phosphate dental cement, T6602, 1993.

  12. ISO 14801:2007. Dentistry—Implant—Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants.

  13. ASTM E486-90:2004 Standard practice for presentation of constant amplitude fatigue test results for metallic materials.

  14. Takamizawa T. Studies on the co-relative and individual biting forces of normal permanent teeth. J Jpn Prosthodont Soc. 1965;9:217–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:537–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Green NT, Machtei EE, Horwitz J, Peled M. Fracture of dental implants; literature review and report of a case. Implant Dent. 2002;1:137–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morgan MJ, James DF, Pilliar RM. Fractures of the fixture component of an osseointegrated implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8:409–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rangert B, Krogh P, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant failure: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10:326–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang HW, Tsai CH, Chang CC, Lin CT, Lee SY. Evaluation of loading conditions on fatigue-failed implants by fracture surface analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20:854–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dittmer MP, Dittmer S, Borchersh L, Kohorst P, Stiesch M. Influence of the interface design on the yield force of the implant-abutment complex before and after cyclic mechanical loading. J Prosthodont Res. 2012;56:19–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chan HL, Oh WS, Ong HS, Fu JH, Steigmann M, Sierraalta M, Wang HL. Impact of implantoplasty on strength of the implant-abutment complex. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:1530–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fumihiko Watanabe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors are provided dental implants for the experiments from Dentsply Friadent. The authors declare that they have no other conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suzuki, H., Hata, Y. & Watanabe, F. Implant fracture under dynamic fatigue loading: influence of embedded angle and depth of implant. Odontology 104, 357–362 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-015-0228-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-015-0228-z

Keywords

Navigation