Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Influence of platform diameter in the reliability and failure mode of extra-short dental implants
Dimorvan Bordin1, Edmara T P Bergamo2, Estevam A Bonfante3
1Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil; University of Guarulhos, Guarulhos, SP, Brazil; Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, 433, 1st avenue, Room 844, New York, NY, USA.
Purpose:
To evaluate the influence of implant diameter in the reliability and failure mode of extra-short dental implants.
Materials And Methods:
Sixty-three extra-short implants (5mm-length) were allocated into three groups according to platform diameter: Ø4.0-mm, Ø5.0-mm, and Ø6.0-mm (21 per group). Identical abutments were torqued to the implants and standardized crowns cemented. Three samples of each group were subjected to single-load to failure (SLF) to allow the design of the step-stress profiles, and the remaining 18 were subjected to step-stress accelerated life-testing (SSALT) in water. The use level probability Weibull curves, and the reliability (probability of survival) for a mission of 100,000 cycles at 100MPa, 200MPa, and 300MPa were calculated. Failed samples were characterized in scanning electron microscopy for fractographic inspection.
Results:
No significant difference was observed for reliability regarding implant diameter for all loading missions. At 100MPa load, all groups showed reliability higher than 99%. A significant decreased reliability was observed for all groups when 200 and 300MPa missions were simulated, regardless of implant diameter. At 300MPa load, the reliability was 0%, 0%, and 5.24%, for Ø4.0mm, Ø5.0mm, and Ø6.0mm, respectively. The mean beta (β) values were lower than 0.55 indicating that failures were most likely influenced by materials strength, rather than damage accumulation. The Ø6.0mm implant showed significantly higher characteristic stress (η = 1,100.91MPa) than Ø4.0mm (1,030.25MPa) and Ø5.0mm implant (η = 1,012.97MPa). Weibull modulus for Ø6.0-mm implant was m = 7.41, m = 14.65 for Ø4.0mm, and m = 11.64 for Ø5.0mm. The chief failure mode was abutment fracture in all groups.
Conclusions:
The implant diameter did not influence the reliability and failure mode of 5mm extra-short implants.
