Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Implant-abutment interface: a comparison of the ultimate force to failure among narrow-diameter implant systems
Ahmad Y Imam1, Alireza Moshaverinia2, Edwin A McGlumphy3
1Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, College of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Statement Of Problem:
Limited available alveolar ridge bone and space deficiencies are some of the challenging scenarios that have led many dental implant manufacturers to develop narrow-diameter implants of various designs. Clinicians may have concerns about the durability and function of the narrow-diameter implants.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to explore and compare the ultimate failure resistance of the smallest diameter of the 2-stage type implant provided by 5 commonly used dental implant systems.
Material And Methods:
Thirty implants, Astra OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm and 3.5 mm, Straumann Bone Level 3.3 mm, Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent 3.7 mm, Full Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm, and NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm, 5 of each type, were tested in this study. A rigid clamp was used to hold the implants at a 30-degree angle to a static load vector. The load continued until the specimen broke or obviously deformed. Peak loads were recorded at that point for all the studied implant systems. Student t test and 1-way ANOVA were used to compare the mean peak load values (α=.05).
Results:
The mean fracture/deformation peak load values were 367.20 N ± 98.05 for Astra OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm; 568.80 N ± 85.24 for Astra OsseoSpeed 3.5 mm; 679.00 N ± 81.09 for Full Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm; 553.4 N ± 56.96 for NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm; 802.80 N ± 134.50 for Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent 3.7 mm; and 576.20 N ± 71.45 for Straumann Bone Level 3.3 mm. Generally, a higher load was required to cause failure in implants with larger diameters than in narrower-diameter implants, and more force was necessary to cause failure in Ti6Al4V alloy implants than in commercially pure titanium implants.
Conclusions:
With regard to implant diameter and ultimate failure strength, Osseotite Certain 3.25 mm was considered to be more advantageous in comparison with the other implants tested.
