Table 1 Studies of in vivo force measurements using a strain gauge-based device

Hobkirk et al. [17]

5/5

Type 3/120/PC11, (Tinsley & Co Ltd., Croydon, England)

2

Mandible

Single crown

MVC, chewing

V

Acrylic teeth

- Nuts 30.6N

- Carrots 42.8N

- Bread 35.2N

- Tapping 9.8N

Porcelain teeth

- Nuts 35N

- Carrots 30.2N

- Bread 35N

- Tapping 11.4N

Mean peak masticatory forces varied considerably from subject to subject but were consistent within each subject

No differences were detected in the load rates associated with the use of porcelain or acrylic occlusal material

Glantz et al. [18]

1/1

Type EA-06-015EH-120; (Micromeasurements, Romulus, MI, USA)

4

Mandible

Fixed partial denture

MVC, chewing

V, L, AP, A

Bending moment

(Approximately 18 Ncm when chewing bread, as shown in the charts)

Not described

(Approximately 15–20N of axial force shown in charts)

A difference in biting force was observed in in vivo and in vitro experiments

Gunne et al. [19]

5/10

Type EA-06-015EH-120; Micromeasurements, Romulus, MI, USA

3

Posterior mandible

Fixed partial denture

MVC, chewing

V

Mean chewing force on the

Mesial implant 24N

Distal implant 11N

Connected implant 16N

The functional load on one implant support and one natural tooth support does not differ from that of two-implant support

Richter et al. [20]

10/10

Type LY 11, Hottinger Baldwin Meßtechnik, Darmstadt, Germany

1

Molar and premolar

Single crown

MVC

V

Max. force 120–150N

Shock-absorbing intramobile elements in implants may not be necessary

Richter et al. [21]

9/18

Type LY 11, Hottinger Baldwin Meßtechnik, Darmstadt, Germany

2

Molar

Single crown

Chewing

V, L, AP

Transverse loading: Max. 170 Nmm

Clenching: Max. 140 Nmm

During functions, transverse forces bend the implant in a buccolingual direction that causes the highest interface stress

Duyck et al. [22]

11/35

Type FLG-02–11 of TML; Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd

3

Mandible and maxilla

Two- or three-unit fixed partial prostheses

50N controlled vertical force

V, L, AP

Not described (shown in charts)

A significantly better distribution of bending moments with the metal prostheses. No difference in load distribution with the different prosthesis materials

Duyck et al

[23]

13/76

Type FLG-02–11 of TML; Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd

3

Mandible and maxilla

Fixed full prosthesis

50N controlled vertical force

L, AP

Not described (shown in charts)

Distal extensions exert more compressive force on the closest implant. Higher forces were observed with a decreasing number of supporting implants

Bassit et al. [24]

5/5

Type EA-06-015EH-120; Micromeasurements, Romulus, MI, USA

3

Premolar

Single crown

Biting, chewing

V

Acrylic resin

patient 1 198N

patient 2 154N

patient 3 450N

patient 4 2055N

patient 5 995N

Ceramic

patient 1 195N

patient 2 63N

patient 3 96N

patient 4 1039N

patient 5 1280N

The different occlusal materials did not lead to different forces on the implants of the patients

Morneburg et al. [25]

9/18

Type FAE-02 W-35-S6, BLH

4

Molar and premolar

Three-unit fixed partial prostheses

Chewing

V

Posterier 314N max

Anterior 91N max

Measuring chewing force by bending the pontic is sensitive to the site of force and involves a risk of underestimation

Morneburg et al. [26]

10/20

Type FAE-02 W-35-S6, BLH

4

Molar and premolar

Three-unit fixed partial prostheses

Chewing

V, L,AP

Mean vertical force 264–284N

Narrowing the occlusal surface reduces lateral force loading

Kim et al. [27]

3/6

Type EA-06-031DE-120; Micro Measurements Division, Wendell, NC, USA

2

Mandible

Three-unit fixed partial prostheses

MVC

V

patient 1 (Rt)

-Gold 231N

-Porcelain 252N

-Tescera 243N

patient 1 (Lt)

-Gold 62N

-Porcelain 114N

-Tescera 50N

patient 2

-Gold 51N

-Porcelain 52N

-Tescera 68N

patient 3

-Gold 118N

-Porcelain 138N

-Tescera 68N

Tescera ATL, porcelain fused to metal, can function as an occlusal material for implant treatment