الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 106 |  |  |
| | | from | 106 | | |
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate stress distribution around a remaining mandibular canine and an implant loaded by an over denture. Strain gauge technology was used to evaluate the produced microstrains; four strain gauges were installed in the buccal, lingual, mesial and distal surfaces of the lower left canine and also four for the implant. Two loading values were used 60 and 90 N and two points of load application; first premolar at each side. The testing conditions were repeated for various degrees of bone loss around the simulated canine (3,6and 8mm). The data file was splitted by the load magnitude into two subsets; 60 and 90 N load magnitude. For all the testing conditions either splinted or not and the load magnitude and point; the manner of load distribution was significantly different than each other around the simulated canine and the implant. The microstrains recorded at the implant locations and at the canine locations were always different in magnitude and or direction. When comparing the microstrains recorded at the same strain gauge location the results showed that there is no significant difference in most of the situations except: The amount of microstrains recorded at the full level of bone support around the canine (for splinted
and non-splinted configurations) was insignificantly different than each other at all aspects around the
implant and the canine at both points of loading. The amount of microstrains recorded at the level of 3 mm bone loss around the canine (for splinted
and non-splinted configuration) were insignificantly different than each other at all aspects around the canine
and the implant except at mesial surface of the canine when the amount of load was 60 N and at the buccal
aspect of the canine when amount of load was 90 N when the point of load was at the tooth side of both
situations. The amount of microstrains recorded at the level of 6 mm bone loss around the canine (for splinted
and non-splinted configuration) were significantly different at mesial aspect of the canine when the load was
60N at the tooth side ,and at the buccal aspect of the canine and the implant when the load was 60 N at the
implant side ,and the mesial and buccal aspects of the canine when the load was 90N at the tooth side, and at
the buccal aspect of the canine when load was 90N at the implant side.
The amount of microstrains recorded at the level of 8 mm bone loss around the canine (for splinted and non-splinted configuration) were significantly different at all aspects except the buccal aspect of the implant that when the point of load was at the tooth side at both load 60 and 90 N. and also were
significantly different at both buccal and mesial aspects of the implant when the point of load was at the
implant side at both load 60 and 90 N.