Biomedical subjects

Rui-Feng Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Rui-Feng Wang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Finite element analysis to determine implant preload.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The nature of the forces used to clamp implant components together, and how they are generated and sustained, is lacking in the literature. PURPOSE: This study examined the dynamic nature of developing the preload in an implant complex using finite element analysis. METHODS: The implant complex was modeled in accordance with the geometric designs for the Nobel Biocare implant systems. A thread helix design for the abutment screw and implant screw bore was modeled to create the geometric design for these units of the implant systems. Using the software programs HyperWorks and LS3D-Dyna, 2 3-dimensional finite element models of (1) a Branemark System 3.75 x 10-mm titanium Mark III implant, a CeraOne titanium abutment, a Unigrip gold alloy abutment screw, and (2) a Replace Select System 4.30 x 10-mm titanium implant, a Straight Esthetic titanium abutment, and a TorqTite titanium abutment screw were created. Modeling the threads to the machining specifications permitted simulation of screw tightening. The abutment screws were subjected to a tightening torque in increments of 1 Ncm from 0 to 64 Ncm using ABAQUS software. Using these models, the effect of the coefficient of friction on the development of preload amount in the implant complex during and after abutment screw tightening was determined. In the first experiment, the coefficient of friction was set to 0.20 between the titanium bearing surface of the abutments and the implant bearing surfaces, and 0.26 between the gold abutment screw and the titanium implant screw bore. In the second experiment, the coefficient of friction was varied; the titanium implant and titanium abutment bearing surfaces were set to a coefficient of friction of 0.20, whereas the Mark III gold and the Replace Select titanium abutment screws and their respective titanium screw bores in the implants were set to 0.12. The preload amount (N) was determined from the finite element analysis. RESULTS: The stress distribution pattern clearly demonstrated a transfer of preload force from the screw to the implant during tightening. A preload of 75% of the yield strength of the abutment screw was not established using the recommended tightening torques. CONCLUSION: Using finite element analysis, a torque of 32 Ncm applied to the abutment screws in the implant assemblies studied in the presence of a coefficient of friction of 0.26 resulted in a lower than optimum preload for the abutment screws. To reach the desired preload of 75% of the yield strength, using a torque of 32 Ncm applied to the abutment screws in the implant assemblies studied, the coefficient of friction between the implant components should be 0.12.

Dental Abutments↗

PubMed2002

The influence of abutment screw tightening on screw joint configuration.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Limiting abutment-to-implant hexagonal discrepancies and rotational movement of the abutment around the implant to less than 5 degrees would result in a more stable screw joint. However, the exact relationship after abutment screw tightening is unknown, as is the effect of a counter-torque device in limiting abutment movement during screw tightening. PURPOSE: This study examined the orientation of the abutment hexagon to the implant hexagon after tightening of the abutment screw for several abutment systems with and without the use of a counter-torque device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty conical self-tapping implants (3.75 x 10.0 mm) and 10 wide-platform Brånemark System implants (5.0 x 10.0 mm), along with 10 abutment specimens from the CeraOne, Estheticone, Procera, and AuraAdapt systems, were selected for this investigation. The implants were placed in a holding device prior to tightening of the abutments. When the tightening torque recommended for each abutment system was reached with the use of a torque controller, each implant abutment specimen was removed from the holding device and embedded in a hard resin medium. The specimens were sectioned in a horizontal direction at the level of the hexagons and cleansed of debris prior to examination. The hexagon orientations were assessed as the degree and direction of rotation of the abutment hexagon around the implant hexagon. RESULTS: The range of the maximum degrees of rotation for all 4 abutment groups tightened with or without the counter-torque device was slightly more than 3.53 degrees. The absolute degrees of rotation for all 4 abutment groups were less than 1.50 degrees with or without the use of the counter-torque device. CONCLUSION: The hexagon-to-hexagon orientation measured as rotational fit on all abutment systems was below the 5 degrees suggested as optimal for screw joint stability. The absolute degrees of rotation for all 4 abutment groups were less than 1.50 degrees regardless of whether the counter-torque device was used.

Dental Abutments↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluation of the precision of fit between the Procera custom abutment and various implant systems.

PURPOSE: It has been suggested that the CAD/CAM Procera custom abutment may be universally applied with multiple implant systems. An acceptable fit between the internal hexagon of an abutment and the external hexagon of various implant systems, along with true interchangeability of the Procera abutment screw, would support this concept. This study determined the precision of fit of the CAD/CAM-produced Procera abutment onto the external hexagon and bearing surfaces of implants from 6 implant manufacturers and the interchangeability of the Procera abutment screw with these systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigation consisted of 3 parts: (1) direct measurement of the internal hexagon and bearing surface of each Procera abutment and the external hexagon and the bearing surface of 6 implants from 6 different systems, (2) radiographic examination of 30 Procera abutment-implant junctions following tightening to 32 Ncm to determine the precision of fit between the bearing surfaces and the top of the external hexagon of the implant with the superior surface of the internal hexagon of the abutment, and (3) examination of 3 abutment screws and 3 implants from the various manufacturers for interchangeability based on American National Standards. RESULTS: The mean flat-to-flat external hexagons of the implants measured between 2.67 and 2.69 mm. The Procera abutment's flat-to-flat internal hexagon measured 2.73 mm. The height of the various implant systems' external hexagon ranged from 0.69 to 0.81 mm. The height of the Procera abutment blanks was 0.90 mm. Radiographic examination demonstrated that not all of the manufacturers' screws fit appropriately within the internal screw bore of the Procera abutment. The internal bore of all implant systems studied had a metric thread designation of M2 x 0.4 - 6H. The metric thread designation of all abutment screws examined was M2 x 0.4 - 6g. The greatest variations in the dimensions of the abutment screws measured were seen in the diameter of the screw head, which ranged from 2.12 to 2.69 mm. DISCUSSION: The Procera abutment's internal hexagon fit the external hexagon of all implant systems evaluated. The Procera abutment screw fit the internal screw bore of the implant systems tested. CONCLUSION: The Procera abutment with its screw can be universally applied to the implant systems studied. This fact, plus the CAD/CAM feature of this system, would thus provide a dynamic approach to satisfying the design and spatial needs of implant placements observed clinically.

Computer-Aided Design↗