15 / 36
CAMLOG&Science – Chapter 3
14 | 15
FATIGUE RESISTANCE AND SEAL: COMPARISON OF CAMLOG
®
AND OTHER IMPLANT SYSTEMS
Steinebrunner et al. (2005a, 2005b) tested the influence of long-term dynamic
loading on the fracture strengths of five different implant systems, one with
external connection (Brånemark) and four with internal connections
(FRIALIT
®
-2, Replace™Select, CAMLOG
®
and Screw-Vent
®
). The test specimens
were subjected to dynamic alternating loading for a maximum of 1.2 million
cycles at a rate of 1 Hz in a dual axis chewing simulator beforemaximum loading
was applied for fracture strength determination (Fig. 10). The results demon-
strated that theCAMLOG
®
and theReplace™Select implant systemswithdeep
internal tube-in-tube connections with cam-slot fixations had the highest
fracture strength score (Tab. 4 and Fig. 11).
A
Fig. 10 A and B:
Schematic representation of the test set-up for (A) dynamic, alternating and
(B) maximum loading (adapted from Steinebrunner 2006). For each implant system to be tested,
16 implant-abutment combinations were fitted with a crown. A subgroup consisting of eight
samples was exposed to dynamic alternating load in a chewing simulator that took into account
a 30° cusp slope, a 2-mm lateral movement, and the physiological vertical chewing force of 120 N
B
reported by Richter (1995). The surviving implants of this subgroup as well as eight control samples
of the other subgroup were then subjected to the quasi-static fracture load test. Force input
point was identical to chewing simulation at 3 mm eccentric from the crown midpoint on the
central cusp, sloped at 30° to the occlusion plane and 11.5 mm distant from the implant shoulder
(Figure 10A).