CAMLOG and Science

CAMLOG&Science – Chapter 3 Fig. 11: Box plot diagram of the quasistatic fracture strengths of the five tested implant systems: Br = Brånemark, Fr = FRIALIT ® -2, Re = Replace ® Select, Ca = CAMLOG ® , Sc = Screw-Vent ® . dyn = after chewing simulation using dynamic loading; contr = without dynamic loading (adapted from Steinebrunner 2006). Fig. 12: Box plot diagram showing the chewing cycles reached before microbial leakage occurred in the individual systems. ... median value. * extreme value. The CAMLOG ® Implant System clearly reached the highest mean number of cycles among the tested systems (adapted from Steinebrunner 2006). Using the same chewing simulation test set-up as illustrated in Figure 10A, Steinebrunner et al. (2005a) also measured the seal of the implant-abutment connections of five different implant systems, the Brånemark, FRIALIT ® -2, the Replace™ Select, CAMLOG ® and the Screw-Vent ® . They checked migration of test microbes from the internal area of the implant-abutment connection in a sterile external culture medium during cyclic loading. The CAMLOG ® Implant System reached a significantly higher number of chewing cycles than the FRIALIT ® -2 and Screw-Vent ® implant systems before microbial leakage was noticed (Fig. 12). Tab. 4: Survival rates of eight implants from each group in the dynamic, alternating loading test. The test was ended after 1.200.000 cycles (adapted from Steinebrunner et al., 2008). SURVIVAL RATES LOADING CYCLES FAILURE [N] Replace-Select 1.200.000 ± 0 0 Camlog 1.200.000 ± 0 0 Branemark 954.300 ± 121.014 3 Compress 922.800 ± 102.242 3 Screw-Vent 913.200 ± 102.242 6 Frialit-2 627.300 ± 164.097 6 Sc dynB Sc contrB Ca dynB Ca contrB Re dynB Re contrB Fr dynB Fr contrB Br dynB Br contrB 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 Subgroups Fracture loads (N) ** ** 24.300 6 7 6 7 6 N = Screw Vent Camlog Replace Select Frialit -2 Brånemark 1.200.000 1.000.000 800 .000 600.000 400.000 200.000 0 172.800 43.200 345.600 64.800 System Chewing cycles