الفهرس 
ABSTRACTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 8 |  |  |
| | | from | 8 | | |
Abstract
In the present study, the TRINIA superstructure showed
significantly lower mε values around both implant angulations
than the BioHPP. The buccal and palatal mε
values of the 25-degree-angled implants were significantly
higher than those of the 15-degree-angled implants
in the 2 study groups with different load directions.
The mε values of the oblique load were
significantly higher than the values of the axial load for
both BioHPP and TRINIA in the 15- and 25-degree
implant angulations on the buccal and palatal sides.
The buccal mε values were significantly higher than the
palatal ones in the 4 subgroups with different load directions.
Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
The TRINIA superstructure material was selected for
evaluation as it is a recently introduced material with
specific mechanical properties. The compatibility between
the elastic modulus of TRINIA and dentin may
reduce the strain developed on the peripheral bone.28 In
addition, the TRINIA superstructure material applies the
biomimetic concept, trying to replicate the nature and
integrity of the tooth structure.32
The load applied in the present study was selected to
be lower than the maximum masticatory forces as they
are not reached during normal mastication.43 A load of
100 N was used based on previous in vitro studies,11,44
and strain gauges were used to evaluate strain around
the implants as they provided quantitative data. In
addition, strain gauges are sensitive, stable, precise, and
reproducible, with minimum interference during
testing.36
The results of this study showed that the BioHPP
group had significantly higher mε values than the TRINIA
group. The higher values may be because of the different
internal structures of the 2 materials. TRINIA is
strengthened by adding glass fibers to a polymer matrix,
23 while BioHPP is reinforced with ceramic particles.24
In TRINIA, the glass fibers are arranged in a multidirectional
and woven configuration,27 enhancing the distribution
of loads and compression within the structure
and resisting compression load, as they have a high
compressive strength of 374 MPa (parallel force) and 339
MPa (transverse force).23 Another explanation is the
difference in the moduli of elasticity between the fibers
and the matrix. The Young modulus of the fibers is about
100 times greater than that of the matrix.17 Therefore,
when applying compression load, the stresses accumulate
at the fiber matrix interface and propagate along
these fibers in the form of waves. Subsequently, most of
them dissipate through the matrix before reaching the
outer surface and surrounding tissues.17
The results in the present study were consistent with
those of Zaparolli et al,22 who reported that glass fibers
added to composite resin particles might reduce excessive
stresses around the implant and maintain normal physiological
loading of the surrounding bone, lowering the
likelihood of peri-implant bone loss. Additionally, the
filler shape plays an important role in stress control. The
ceramic fillers in BioHPP are spherical particles