Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ä¡°ú ÀÓÇ÷£Æ®¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÁöÁöµÇ´Â ±Ý¼Ó BARÀÇ Áö´ëÁÖ Á¾·ù¿¡ µû¸¥ ÆÄÀý°­µµ¿Í ±ÁÈû ¸ð¸àÆ®¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

A STUDY ON THE FRACTURE STRENGTH AND BENDING MOVEMENT OF THE METAL BAR SUPPORTED BY OSSEOINTEGRATED DENTAL IMPLANT ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF ABUTMENT

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀ̽ÄÇÐȸÁö 1994³â 14±Ç 1È£ p.71 ~ 83
ÀÌ¿µÁØ, Á¶ÀÎÈ£,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌ¿µÁØ ( Lee Young-Joon ) - Dankook University Graduate School Department of Prosthodontics
Á¶ÀÎÈ£ ( Cho In-Ho ) - Dankook University Graduate School Department of Prosthodontics

Abstract


It has been recommended for rehabilitating severely resorbed mandible with implantsupported overdenture when the adequate retention and stability can not be obtained by the method of conventional complete denture. This study was performed to compare the fracture strength of the superstructure betweeen the Branemark conventional abutment and the UCLA abutment. The results of this study were as follows. 1. When the load was applied to the 7.0mm cantilever point from the fixture posterior of the metal bar, fracture strength was 50.92ÞÍ 9.43(kg) in Branemark conventional system and 40.77¡¾ 5.27(kg) in UCLA system. Branemark conventional system had higher fracture strength value (p<0.05). 2. When the load was applied to the center of metal bar, Branemark conventional system (180.97¡¾ 17.85) also showed the higher fracture strength than that of UCLA system (148.73¡¾ 4.90kg) (p<0.05). 3. The common area of fracture was the connector of metal bar regardless of loading position. The fracture strength of load on the center of metal bar was 3.5 times over than that of load on 7.0mm cantilever of metal bar. 4. From the viewpoint of fracture strength of metal bar, Branemark conventional system had more favorable situation than UCLA system due to its own double stress buffering mechanism (gold screw and abutment screw).

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸