Misfit is unavoidable in dental implant-supported prostheses due to machining process or inappropriate assembling, and the definition of an admissible misfit is still a controversial issue. This work aims to understand the behavior of the screws in dental implant-supported prostheses to estimate an admissible vertical misfit value in terms of screw fatigue failure. For that purpose, a finite element model of a dental implant-supported prosthesis was created and analyzed. Vertical misfits were introduced in different positions, the lower and upper screws were tightened to the bolting force values recommended by the manufacturer, and two different occlusal loads were analyzed. In addition, two different prosthesis materials were studied. Screw load variations were reported and a fatigue analysis was performed. As a result, it was observed that the screw tightening sequence closed small vertical misfits (equal to or less than 40 µm), whereas larger misfits (more than 40 µm) remained open. If the vertical misfit is closed by the end of the tightening sequence, it may be considered equivalent to the ideal fit situation in regard to screw fatigue failure. The prosthesis material had no significant influence on the fatigue behavior.
TurkyilmazICompanyAMMcGlumphyEA.Should edentulous patients be constrained to removable complete dentures? The use of dental implants to improve the quality of life for edentulous patients. Gerodontology2010; 27: 3–10.
2.
CorayRZeltnerMÖzcanM.Fracture strength of implant abutments after fatigue testing: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2016; 62: 333–346.
3.
MischCEPerelMLWangHLet al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent2008; 17: 5–15.
4.
AbduoJBennaniVWaddellNet al. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2010; 25: 506–515.
5.
JivrajSCheeW.Treatment planning for implants in posterior quadrants. Br Dent J2007; 201: 13–23.
6.
KarlMWinterWDickinsonAet al. Different bone loading patterns due to fixation of three-unit and five-unit implant prostheses. Aust Dent J2007; 52: 47–54.
7.
GuichetDYoshinobuDCaputoA.Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent2002; 87: 528–535.
8.
HuangHHuangJSKoCCet al. Effects of splinted prosthesis supported a wide implant or two implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res2005; 16: 466–472.
9.
BergkvistGSahlolmSNilnerKet al. Implant-supported fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. A 2-year clinical and radiological follow-up of treatment with non-submerged ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res2004; 15: 351–359.
10.
AkçaKAkkocaogluMCömertAet al. Bone strains around immediately loaded implants supporting mandibular overdentures in human cadavers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2007; 22: 101–109.
11.
AkçaKIplikçioğluH.Finite element stress analysis of the influence of staggered versus straight placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2001; 16: 722–730.
12.
AparicioC.A new method for achieving passive fit of an interim restoration supported by Brånemark implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1995; 10: 614–618.
13.
PatzeltSBBahatOReynoldsMAet al. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res16: 836–855.
14.
PattersonEA.Passive fit of implant supported superstructures: fiction or reality. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995, pp.17–28.
15.
MischCE.Dental implant prosthetics. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby, 2005.
16.
BaldassarriMHjerppeJRomeoDet al. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2012; 27: 537–543.
17.
BarbosaGABernardesSRdas NevesFDet al. Relation between implant/abutment vertical misfit and torque loss of abutment screws. Braz Dent J2008; 19: 358–363.
18.
BarbosaGAdas NevesFDde Mattos MdaGet al. Implant/abutment vertical misfit of one-piece cast frameworks made with different materials. Braz Dent J2010; 21: 515–519.
19.
HamiltonAJudgeRBPalamaraJEet al. Evaluation of the fit of CAD/CAM abutments. Int J Prosthodont2013; 26: 370–380.
20.
SahinSCehreliM.The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent2001; 10: 85–92.
21.
KarlMWinterWTaylorTet al. In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2004; 19: 30–37.
22.
JemtTCarlssonLBossAet al. In vivo load measurements on osseointegrated implants supporting fixed or removable prostheses: a comparative pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1991; 6: 413–417.
23.
TurkyilmazINicollRJ.State-of-the-art technology in implant dentistry: CAD/CAM. In: TurkyilmazI (ed.) Implant dentistry—a rapidly evolving practice. San Antonio, TX: Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center, 2011, pp. 219–250.
24.
TaylorTDAgarJRVogiatziT.Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2000; 15: 66–75.
25.
BrånemarkP.Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent1983; 50: 399–410.
26.
JemtT.Failures and complications in 391 consecutively 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 Implants1991; 6: 270–276.
27.
WatanabeFUnoIHataYet al. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2000; 15: 209–218.
28.
SahinSCehreliMYalcinE.The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses—a review. J Dent2002; 30: 271–282.
Al-TurkiLChaiJLautenschlagerEet al. Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont2002; 15: 38–42.
31.
KunavisarutCLangLStonerBet al. Finite element analysis on dental-implant supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont2002; 11: 30–40.
32.
KallusTBessingC.Loose gold screws frequently occur in full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1994; 9: 169–178.
33.
HobkirkJA. Fit-related stress in the implant-host complex. In: NaertIE (ed.) Passive fit of implant supported superstructures. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995, pp. 72–85.
34.
JemtTLekholmUJohanssonCB.Bone response to implant-supported frameworks with differing degrees of misfit preload: in vivo study in rabbits. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2000; 2: 129–137.
35.
PereiraLSordiMMaginiRet al. Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: an integrative review. Eur J Dent2017; 11: 553–558.
36.
De TorresEMSilveiraRCChiarelloMGet al. The effect of commercially pure titanium and alternative dental alloys on the marginal fit of one piece cast implant frameworks. J Dent2007; 35: 800–805.
37.
RiedySJLangBRLangBE.Fit of implant frameworks fabricated by different techniques. J Prosthet Dent1997; 78: 596–604.
38.
AssifDMarshakBSchmidtA.Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1996; 11: 216–222.
39.
HedkvistLMattssonTHelldenL.Clinical performance of a method for the fabrication of implant-supported precisely fitting titanium frameworks: a retrospective 5- to 8-year clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2004; 6: 174–180.
40.
RomeroGEngelmeierRPowersJet al. Accuracy of three corrective techniques for implant bar fabrication. J Prosthet Dent2000; 84: 602–607.
41.
WeeAGAquilinoSASchneiderRL.Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont1999; 12: 167–178.
42.
Al-FaddaSAZarbGAFinerY.A comparison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks. Int J Prosthodont2007; 20: 125–131.
43.
DragoCSaldarriagaRLDomagalaDet al. Volumetric determination of the amount of misfit in CAD/CAM and cast implant frameworks: a multicenter laboratory study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2010; 25: 920–929.
44.
ÖrtorpAJemtTBäckTet al. Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont2003; 16: 194–200.
45.
DavidowitzGKotickPG.The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am2011; 55: 559–570.
46.
Van StadenRCGuanHLooYC.Application of finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2006; 9: 257–270.
47.
GengJTanKLiuG.Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent2001; 85: 585–598.
48.
NataliANPavanPG.Numerical approach to dental biomechanics. In: NataliAN (ed.) Dental biomechanics. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003, pp.211–239.
49.
RuboJHCapelloEA.Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2010; 12: 105–113.
50.
BaggiLPastoreSDi GirolamoMet al. Implant-bone load transfer mechanisms in complete-arch prostheses supported by four implants: a three-dimensional finite element approach. J Prosthet Dent2013; 109: 9–21.
51.
SertgözA.Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont1997; 10: 19–27.
52.
AbreuRTSpazzinAONoritomiPYet al. Influence of material of overdenture-retaining bar with vertical misfit on three-dimensional stress distribution. J Prosthodont2010; 19: 425–431.
53.
BacchiAConsaniRLMesquitaMFet al. Stress distribution in fixed-partial prosthesis and peri-implant bone tissue with different framework materials and vertical misfit levels: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Sci2013; 55: 239–244.
54.
IplikçioğluHAkçaK.Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent2002; 30: 41–46.
55.
CruzMWassallTToledoEMet al. Finite element stress analysis of dental prostheses supported by straight and angled implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2009; 24: 391–403.
56.
NataliANPavanPGRuggeroAL.Evaluation of stress induced in peri-implant bone tissue by misfit in multi-implant prosthesis. Dent Mater2006; 22: 388–395.
57.
SütpidelerMEckertSEZobitzMet al. Finite element analysis of effect of prosthesis height, angle of force application, and implant offset on supporting bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2004; 19: 819–825.
BickfordJH.An introduction to the design and behavior of bolted joints. 3rd ed.New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1995.
60.
GonzalezSM.Cortical bone thickness in the maxilla and mandible for mini-implant placement. MS Thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa, IA, 2008.
61.
BaumgaertelaSHansbMG.Buccal cortical bone thickness for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2009; 136: 230–235.
62.
CassettaMSofanABarbatoE.Evaluation of alveolar cortical bone thickness and density for orthodontic mini-implant placement. J Clin Exp Dent2013; 5: 245–252.
63.
CoriaIAbasoloMOlaskoagaIet al. A new methodology for the optimization of bolt tightening sequences for ring type joints. Ocean Eng2017; 129: 441–450.
64.
KimJYoonJCKangBS.Finite element analysis and modeling of structure with bolted joints. Appl Math Model2007; 31: 895–911.
65.
MeijerHJAStarmansFJMBosmanFet al. A comparison of finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil1993; 20: 147–157.
66.
CookSDKlawitterJJWeinsteinAM.The influence of implant geometry on the stress distribution around dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res A1982; 16: 369–379.
67.
FroesFH.Titanium: physical metallurgy, processing, and applications. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 2015.
68.
GoodmanJ.Mechanics applied to engineering. London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1899.
69.
NortonRL.Machine design: an integrated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2013.
70.
JuvinallRCMarshekKM.Fundamentals of machine component design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2011.
