» Articles » PMID: 32245138

Fatigue of Narrow Dental Implants: Influence of the Hardening Method

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2020 Apr 5
PMID 32245138
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The use of narrow titanium dental implants (NDI) for small ridges, reduced interdental space, or missing lateral incisors can be a viable option when compared to the conventional wider dental implants. Furthermore, in many cases, standard diameter implant placement may not be possible without grafting procedures, which increases the healing time, cost, and morbidity. The aim of this study was to analyze the mechanical viability of the current narrow implants and how narrow implants can be improved. Different commercially available implants (n = 150) were tested to determine maximum strength, strain to fracture, microhardness, residual stress, and fatigue obtaining the stress-number of cycles to fracture (SN) curve. Fractography was studied by scanning electron microscopy. The results showed that when the titanium was hardened by the addition of 15% of Zr or 12% cold worked, the fatigue limit was higher than the commercially pure grade 4 Ti without hardening treatment. Grade 4 titanium without hardening treatment in narrow dental implants can present fractures by fatigue. These narrow implants are subjected to high mechanical stresses and the mechanical properties of titanium do not meet the minimal requirements, which lead to frequent fractures. New hardening treatments allow for the mechanical limitations of conventional narrow implants to be overcome in dynamic conditions. These hardening treatments allow for the design of narrow dental implants with enhanced fatigue life and long-term behavior.

Citing Articles

Effect of Tribocorrosion on Mechanical Behavior of Titanium Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study.

Vegas-Bustamante E, Sanmarti-Garcia G, Gil J, Delgado-Garona L, Figueiredo R, Camps-Font O Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(5).

PMID: 40077361 PMC: 11901520. DOI: 10.3390/ma18051136.


Clinical challenges of biomechanical performance of narrow-diameter implants in maxillary posterior teeth in aging patients: A finite element analysis.

Prasitwuttisak S, Chantarapanich N, Apinyauppatham K, Poomparnich K, Inglam S PLoS One. 2024; 19(3):e0299816.

PMID: 38527030 PMC: 10962792. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299816.


Differences between the Fittings of Dental Prostheses Produced by CAD-CAM and Laser Sintering Processes.

Herrero-Climent M, Punset M, Molmeneu M, Brizuela A, Gil J J Funct Biomater. 2023; 14(2).

PMID: 36826866 PMC: 9959825. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14020067.


Relevant Aspects of the Dental Implant Design on the Insertion Torque, Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) and Micromobility: An In Vitro Study.

Herrero-Climent M, Falcao A, Tondela J, Brizuela A, Rios-Carrasco B, Gil J J Clin Med. 2023; 12(3).

PMID: 36769501 PMC: 9917810. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12030855.


Endosseous Dental Implant Materials and Clinical Outcomes of Different Alloys: A Systematic Review.

Fiorillo L, Cicciu M, Tozum T, Saccucci M, Orlando C, Romano G Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(5).

PMID: 35269211 PMC: 8911578. DOI: 10.3390/ma15051979.


References
1.
Manero J, Gil F, Padros E, Planell J . Applications of environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) in biomaterials field. Microsc Res Tech. 2003; 61(5):469-80. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.10358. View

2.
Goonawardhana D, Judge R, Palamara J, Abduo J . Effect of Implant Diameter And Alloy on Peri-Implant Strain: An In Vitro Quantitative Strain Analysis. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2017; 24(3):181-185. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_1558Goonawardhana05. View

3.
Nicolas-Silvente A, Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-Garcia I, Monsalve-Guil L, Gil J, Jimenez-Guerra A . Influence of the Titanium Implant Surface Treatment on the Surface Roughness and Chemical Composition. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(2). PMC: 7014346. DOI: 10.3390/ma13020314. View

4.
Almeida E, Freitas Jr A, Bonfante E, Marotta L, Silva N, Coelho P . Mechanical testing of implant-supported anterior crowns with different implant/abutment connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28(1):103-8. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2443. View

5.
Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M . Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 25(2):113-9. View