Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
Published on: March 7, 2014
Microstrain around dental implants supporting fixed partial prostheses under axial and non-axial loading conditions,
Luis Gustavo Oliveira de Vasconcellos1, Renato Sussumu Nishioka, Luana Marotta Reis de Vasconcellos
1From the Departments of *Dental Materials and Prosthodontics †Bioscience and Buccal Diagnosis, and ‡Social Dentistry and Children's Clinic, School of Dentistry of São José dos Campos, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Jose dos Campos, Brazil.
Abstract:
The current study used strain gauge analysis to perform an in vitro evaluation of the effect of axial and non-axial loading on implant-supported fixed partial prostheses, varying the implant placement configurations and the loading points. Three internal hexagon implants were embedded in the center of each polyurethane block with in-line and offset placements. Microunit abutments were connected to the implants using a torque of 20 N · cm, and plastic prosthetic cylinders were screwed onto the abutments, which received standard patterns cast in Co-Cr alloy (n = 10). Four strain gauges (SGs) were bonded onto the surfaces of the blocks, tangentially to the implants: SG 01 mesially to implant 1, SG 02 and SG 03 mesially and distally to implant 2, respectively, and SG 04 distally to implant 3. Each metallic structure was screwed onto the abutments using a 10-N·cm torque, and axial and non-axial loads of 30 kg were applied at 5 predetermined points. The data obtained from the strain gauge analyses were analyzed statistically through the repeated measures analysis of variance and the Tukey test, with a conventional level of significance of P < 0.05. The results showed a statistically significant difference for the loading point (P = 0.0001), with point E (nonaxial) generating the highest microstrain (327.67 μ[Latin Small Letter Open E]) and point A (axial) generating the smallest microstrain (208.93 μ[Latin Small Letter Open E]). No statistically significant difference was found for implant placement configuration (P = 0.856). It was concluded that the offset implant placement did not reduce the magnitude of microstrain around the implants under axial and non-axial loading conditions, although loading location did influence this magnitude.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Measurements of Strain
Normal Strain under Axial Loading
Stress-Strain Diagram
Relation between Poisson's ratio, Modulus of Elasticity and Modulus of Rigidity
True Stress and True Strain
In contrast, true stress offers a more precise portrayal. It is computed by dividing the...

