title: The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  While caution in the use of small-diameter (< or = 3.5 mm) implants has been advocated in view of an increased risk of fatigue fracture under clinical loading conditions, a variety of implant designs with diameters < 3 mm are currently offered in the market for reconstructions including fixed restorations. There is an absence of reported laboratory studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate clinical efficacy for implant designs with small diameters. This laboratory study aimed to provide comparative data on the mechanical performance of a number of narrow commercially marketed implants.
  
  
  METHODS
  Implants of varying designs were investigated under a standardized test set-up similar to that recommended for standardized ISO laboratory testing. Implant assemblies were mounted in acrylic blocks supporting laboratory cast crowns and subjected to 30 degrees off-axis loading on an LRX Tensometer. Continuous output data were collected using Nexygen software.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Load/displacement curves demonstrated good grouping of samples for each design with elastic deformation up to a point of failure approximating the maximum load value for each sample. The maximum loads for Straumann (control) implants were 989 N (+/-107 N) for the 4.1 mm RN design, and 619 N (+/-50 N) for the 3.3 mm RN implant (an implant known to have a risk of fracture in clinical use). Values for mini implants were recorded as 261 N (+/-31 N) for the HiTec 2.4 mm implant, 237 N (+/-37 N) for the Osteocare 2.8 mm mini and 147 N (+/-25 N) for the Osteocare mini design. Other implant designs were also tested.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The diameters of the commercially available implants tested demonstrated a major impact on their ability to withstand load, with those below 3 mm diameter yielding results significantly below a value representing a risk of fracture in clinical practice. The results therefore advocate caution when considering the applicability of implants < or = 3 mm diameter. Standardized fatigue testing is recommended for all commercially available implants.
authors.affiliation: Dental Implant Clinic, 5 Church Row, Hurworth, Darlington, UK. simon@toothimplants.co.uk
authors.forename: Simon Rupert
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Allum
authors.forename: Rachel Anne
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Tomlinson
authors.forename: Rajendra
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Joshi
mesh_terms: D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015921:Dental Implants / Q000145:classification*; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D016474:Weight-Bearing
chemical_list: D015921:Dental Implants