Fig 1.
Comparison between the Collo implant and natural teeth design.
Fig 2.
(a) Details of new Collo implant characteristics and dimensions; (b) sample implant and abutment used in the MT group; (c) sample implant and abutment used in the Collo out and Collo bl groups; and (d) sample implant and abutment used for the EH con group.
Fig 3.
The components used in the test and the direction of load application on each sample.
Fig 4.
Graph demonstrating the limits of resistance that were evaluated in each set in each group.
Fig 5.
Image shows a box plot graph with the data distribution between the groups.
Table 1.
Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test comparing the maximum resistance to plastic deformation between the groups.
Fig 6.
Representative images of a sample before (left) and after (right) the load application of the MT group. The yellow arrows indicate the points where the set showed less resistance.
Fig 7.
Representative images of a sample before (left) and after (right) the load application of the Collo bl group (a) and EH con group (b). The yellow arrows indicate the points where the set showed less resistance.
Fig 8.
(a) Representative images of a sample before (left) and after (right) the load application of the Collo out group. The yellow arrow indicates where there was a separation between the abutment and implant, and the red arrow shows where the implant fracture occurred in its thinnest portion (center of the neck). (b) Image with higher magnification showing the details of the sample changes after the test.
Fig 9.
Graph images of the number of cycles supported by the samples of each group during the 4 applied load levels: (a) MT group, (b) Collo out group, (c) Collo bl group, and (d) EH con group.
Table 2.
Mean and statistical comparison of cycles supported by the samples of each group in the 4 intensities of forces calculated on the value of maximum resistance obtained in the quasi-static test.