Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2026
Using Baseplating and a Miniscope Preanchored with an Objective Lens for Calcium Transient Research in Mice
Published on: June 5, 2021
Peri-implant strain analysis: An in vitro comparison between screw- and cement-retained posterior base metal
Sarit Naishlos1, Joseph Nissan2, Gil Ben-Izhack3
1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Background:
Research is required to characterize peri-implant strain distribution associated with different restorative designs.
Objectives:
This in vitro qualitative photoelastic stress analysis aimed to compare the influence of retention modality (screw-retained or cement-retained) on strain development around implants supporting different 3-unit posterior restorative designs.
Material And Methods:
Six prosthetic restorative designs were evaluated according to retention modality and prosthetic configuration: 3 single crowns, cement-retained and screw-retained (SC-c and SC-s, respectively); 3 splinted crowns (SP-c and SP-s); and simple 3-unit bridges (SB-c and SB-s). All prosthetic units were morphologically identical. A photoelastic resin block incorporating 3 implants was mounted on a loading device that applied vertical loads of 200 N simultaneously at 3 identical loading points on each restoration to simulate chewing, occlusal clenching and deglutition. Fringe lines were photographically recorded and qualitatively analyzed after placement of the restorations and during loading.
Results:
Screw-retained restoration with splinted crowns (SP-s) was the only design to exhibit strain in the unloaded state following placement, representing preload strain. Loading-induced strains were observed in SC-c and SC-s, with lower strain levels for SC-c than for SC-s, and in SP-c and SP-s, with lower strain levels for SP-c than for SP-s. Both configurations also exhibited crestal strains. The simple bridge (SB) designs revealed purely axial strains, with no crestal strains, regardless of retention modality.
Conclusions:
Retention modality appears to influence peri-implant strain development in mesiodistal and occlusogingival dimensions for 3-unit single crown and splinted crown designs. Screw-retained 3-unit splinted prostheses may generate preload strains around the unloaded implant supporting the restoration. Simple 3-unit bridge designs demonstrated the most favorable strain pattern, regardless of the retention modality.
