Vol. 3, Issue 1, pages 33-37
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35252/jspir.2022.1.003.1.06
Design and biomechanical comparison between classic and new-generation of zygomatic implants – Experimental study
Duarte F, Silva JN, Pinheiro L, Ramos C
Abstract
Purpose: The present experimental study aims to show the evolution of zygomatic implant design from a well-known manufacturer (S.I.N. Implant System, São Paulo, Brazil) since its classic zygomatic dental implant to the modern zygomatic dental implant. A biomechanical comparison of the two previously mentioned types of zygomatic implants has been performed through dynamic fatigue evaluation tests in accordance with ISO 14801 standards.
Materials and Methods: Classic and new-generation of zygomatic implants have been subjected to dynamic fatigue loading tests performed in accordance with ISO 14801:2007 and ISO 14801:2016 standards.
Results: The “% of Reference Load versus Number of Cycles” curves show that classicgeneration zygomatic implants can resist up to 30,0% of reference load during 5 ´ 106 mechanic loading cycles, whereas the new-generation zygomatic implants can resist up to 66,6% of the reference load during 5 ´ 106 mechanic loading cycles. Whereas classic-generation zygomatic implants only show rupture in the screw region of the implant, new-generation zygomatic implants show either implant or screw rupture.
Conclusion: The new-generation zygomatic implants have shown promising biomechanical properties in dynamic loading tests. They can support twice the amount of reference load (66,0% against 30,0%) when compared with classic-generation zygomatic implants.
Materials and Methods: Classic and new-generation of zygomatic implants have been subjected to dynamic fatigue loading tests performed in accordance with ISO 14801:2007 and ISO 14801:2016 standards.
Results: The “% of Reference Load versus Number of Cycles” curves show that classicgeneration zygomatic implants can resist up to 30,0% of reference load during 5 ´ 106 mechanic loading cycles, whereas the new-generation zygomatic implants can resist up to 66,6% of the reference load during 5 ´ 106 mechanic loading cycles. Whereas classic-generation zygomatic implants only show rupture in the screw region of the implant, new-generation zygomatic implants show either implant or screw rupture.
Conclusion: The new-generation zygomatic implants have shown promising biomechanical properties in dynamic loading tests. They can support twice the amount of reference load (66,0% against 30,0%) when compared with classic-generation zygomatic implants.