Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This article seeks to give the clinician insight into the design process and
biomaterial/biomechanical aspects of endosseous implant design. Specific facets
considered relate to materials, implant shape, special surface coatings,
shock-absorbers, and the implant-tissue interface.
(Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:85-97)
Key words: biomaterials, biomechanics, design, forces, interface, stress transfer
subjects represent only two of many subproblems in the entire design effort. Any
implant must be constructed from a biomaterial. The biological performance of the
chosen biomaterial will be of concern. Dental implants must function
biomechanically, so biomechanical issues will arise. Implantation surgery,
postoperative care, periodontal health, patient physiology, costs to the patient, and
other aspects also are key subproblems in implant design, but these go beyond the
scope of this review.
Subproblems
Biomechanics is the application of engineering mechanics (statics, dynamics,
strength of materials, and stress analysis) to the solution of biological problems.
Biomechanics pertains to dentistry because the teeth and jaw perform biomechanical
activities during mastication.2 Biomaterials deals with the effects of an implanted
material on the body and vice versa.
Biomechanical and biomaterial subproblems are depicted in Fig 1. First, any
dental implant, regardless of its biomaterial or shape (Fig 2), will be exposed to
intraoral forces and moments. These loadings may be appreciable and the implant
must withstand these loadings without being damaged.
Second, the implant has to be supported within the jaw by some method which
will involve biomaterial and shape factors.
Third, the implant will transmit loading to the interfacial tissues around the
implant, which then must tolerate them without adverse tissue response. The
problem is selecting the material and shape of the implant so the implant functions
properly.
Background
A design problem cannot begin to be solved without background data or
information. For implants, prior research has provided some—but not all—of the
biomechanical and biomaterial data for design.
Following is a synopsis of background research pertaining to implant design.
In vivo loadings. Vertical components of chewing forces have been reported for
patients with natural teeth and for patients wearing conventional and
implant-supported dentures (Table 1).
The normal human dentition is capable of exerting large forces. Axial
components are in the range of 200 to 2,440 N, and lateral force components are of
the order of 30 N (a newton is approximately the weight of one apple; 1 N = 0.2249
lb). For dentures supported by dental implants (fixtures) workers in Sweden8 have
measured vertical closure forces of 42 to 412 N.
Implant design must distinguish between closure forces and vector components
of forces and moments on individual implants supporting a bridge (Fig 3). While
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
closure forces are useful, individual loading components on implants are required for
detailed design analyses of implants and surrounding interfacial tissues.
Unfortunately, except in animal studies,14 no direct measurements are available
for loading components on dental implants in vivo, although data may be
forthcoming.15 Without these data, in vivo forces must be estimated on dental
implants, and the estimates used for stress analyses of implants or interfacial tissues.
These analyses will only be as good as the input information, which is approximate
at this time.
Implant properties. Implants should not fracture, yield, fatigue, wear, or
otherwise fail during in vivo use. Failure prevention necessitates testing and stress
analyses of the implants and tissues. Assuming there is accurate background data on
typical implant loading (which is limited, as previously noted), the problem is to
select adequate intrinsic and structural mechanical properties of implants.
Intrinsic properties pertain to the material and not its shape. They include a
material's elastic moduli, yield point, ultimate tensile strength, compressive strength,
fatigue strength, and hardness. (For corrosion behavior, intrinsic properties could
also be defined.) Values can be found in textbooks and literature, or they may be
directly measured via standard test methods.16-19 Caution is advised in using
handbook values, because manufacturing processes can cause significant property
differences between raw material and the finished product.
Structural mechanical properties embody both the intrinsic material property and
the geometrical shape of the device being considered. For example, the
deformability of a beam in bending depends on the product EI (flexural rigidity),
where E is Young's modulus of elasticity and I is the second moment of area of the
beam's cross-section. The deflections of a cantilevered dental bridge could be
inappropriate even when the bridge is made of a strong, high-modulus (E) dental
alloy because its deflection under load will depend on both modulus and dimensions.
There are handbooks and articles on proper structural design that can be applied to
implant design.20-22
Biomechanical properties. When considering an implant design, it would also
be helpful, if not essential, to have data on:
• The percentage of an implant's surface that will actually be supported by hard
versus soft interfacial tissues
• The mechanical properties of the interfacial tissues
• The extent to which the implant will rely on mechanical support from trabecular
versus cortical bone
• The response of interfacial tissues to the imposed mechanical conditions arising
from in vivo loads on the implant
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
are made. It will be evident that a main theme relates to the question of how best to
fix a dental implant in its interfacial tissues.
Pseudoperiodontal ligament. Rationale. An influential early design rationale
was the "pseudoperiodontal ligament," discussed by Linkow and Cherchève in 1970
50 and more recently by James52 as well as Weiss in connection with fibro-osseous
integration.24 Linkow and Cherchève asserted that "a good implant design . . . must
either complement or supplement the natural biomechanical forces of the site," and
"the operative procedure. . . must be so precise as to cause as little trauma and
destruction to the site as possible."
Moreover, Linkow and Cherchève proposed that the part of a dental implant in
bone "should be irregularly shaped so bone could grow into and through the
irregularities." They stated that "a band of collagenous connective tissue forms
between the implant and its surrounding bone. . . which will firmly wrap around and
bind itself to the implant."
They also claimed that this collagenous tissue was a pseudoperiodontal ligament
that could behave as follows: (a) the fibers connect to bone in a way reminiscent of
Sharpey's fibers; (b) the fibers can pull on the bone when the implant is loaded; and
( c) this pulling on the bone recreates the tension on bone necessary for its healthy and
continued growth.
Critique. A difficulty with this rationale is that the argument is teleological.
There is little detailed experimental evidence that interfacial collagenous tissue
actually functions in the ways proposed. It is alleged that dental implants with
interfacial fibrous tissue do function properly in humans and there must therefore be
functional capabilities of fibrous tissue around such implants. However, these are
frequently anecdotal clinical reports with no attempts to quantify any functional
capabilities of this fibrous tissue.
Theories can be proposed to suggest how fibrous tissue may be functioning.
However, data are still needed on the structure, function, properties, and formation
of this tissue in relation to implant success.
Actually, the evidence is strong that fibrous tissue forms as a result of relative
motion of implant and healing bone, regardless of biomaterial used (Table 2). This
suggests that fibrous tissue is a byproduct of mechanical interference with bone
healing around the implant. Whether it also functions as a pseudoperiodontal or
suspensory ligament for a dental implant is a separate question that has not been
fully answered, according to some researchers.
Ten Cate,53 for example, disputes the analogy between fibrous tissue and normal
periodontium on the basis of its cellular makeup and biological origin. Therefore, in
terms of design, the problem remains for advocates of fibrous tissue to explain the
rationale and objectives for this interfacial tissue, and, most importantly, to properly
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
type may provide greater resistance to relative motion than press-fit shapes.
Alternatively, the hollow basket70 and single crystal sapphire (Al2O3) screw71
are one-stage implants that apparently afford enough stability during the early
healing—probably because of their geometry—to allow bone ingrowth into surface
asperities and holes.
Fourth, interfacial shear strengths for porous designs have been measured and
give some insight into mechanical integrity and loading limits of the bone-implant
interface. Tests of porous Ti-6AI-4V and polyethylene63 show interfacial shear
strength values of 2 to 10 MPa, depending on implantation time. Based on the
dimensions of the implants (approximately 4 mm diameter, 8 mm long), these
stresses convert to failure loads of 176 to 1,407 N. These may be interpreted as
upper bounds for safe axial biting loads on implants of this geometry. However, if
bite force data in Table 1 are realistic, these porous implants would seem to be
underdesigned and liable to fail by overload.
Finally, with porous systems in orthopedics there has been concern about
adverse interfacial bone remodeling (stress protection atrophy), possibly related to
nonphysiological interfacial stress distribution caused by porous implants.72 It is
uncertain if this is also a problem with porous dental implants. Until more is known
about the physiological desirability of one stress field over another, this subject is
difficult to discuss with respect to implant design.
Micro-irregularities. Rationale. Here, the surface irregularities are at the
microscopic level, possibly in conjunction with macro-irregularities. This would
afford the possibility of microscopic interlocking of bone and implant, which might
enhance the load transmitting capabilities of the interface.
For instance, the Tubingen dental implant is a tapered stepped cylinder of
aluminum oxide ceramic (Al2O3) with rounded edges so pressure points can be
avoided in these bone contact zones.73 The shape is intended to require force transfer
to bone mainly at right angles to the transfer surface. The Tubingen implant also has
shallow, circular depressions (about 0.9 mm in diameter) repeated over the entire
surface, which are designed to encourage osteonal bone apposition at the micro
level.
Carbon and carbon-coated dental blade-vent implants can also be made to have a
microporous surface texture, with soft undulations of about 10-micron depth. A
blade-type implant consisting of a graphite substrate and a 0.03-inch coating of
low-temperature isotropic (LTI) pyrolitic carbon, was manufactured, tested,74 and
implanted in baboons.75
The rationale for use of this material was its general biocompatible performance
in blood-contacting applications, its possible prevention of corrosion if used as a
coating on macroporous metallic implants, and the surface microtexture of the LTI
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
material.
Also, experiments have explored the use of grit-blasting and other texturing
methods for enhancing fixation properties such as stiffness and strength of the
interface for carbon-coated and noncoated implants.76-78
Critique. The interface observed for micro-irregular surfaces tends to be close, if
not direct bone-implant apposition, suggesting that the goal of microscopic
interlocking could indeed be achieved. Thomas, Anderson, Cook, and co-workers76
used a dog femoral transcortical plug model in which 6-mm diameter × 18-mm long
cylinders of various materials and surface textures were inserted in dog femora and
then pushed out via a special mechanical test rig after various implantation times.
The testing provided data on interface shear strength and interface shear stiffness
as a function of implant material and surface texture. The former is the shear stress
(in MPa) at maximum load during a push-out test and the latter is the ratio between
shear stress and displacement (units GPa/m).
Data from this model76-78 indicate that the interface shear strength for LTI
pyrolitic carbon samples—and a number of other materials and surface textures—is
about one order of magnitude less (range: 1.56 to 4.48 MPa) than values for
macro-irregular, porous systems (roughly 2 to 16 MPa). These stress values help
define how large a force (axial) can be taken by the implant before the interface fails.
For a typical LTI carbon cylinder in the transcortical dog model (where the
bone-implant contact area is about 80 mm2), the push-out force is of the order of 150
N. This force is low with respect to anticipated axial biting forces (Table 1).
Therefore, more surface area would be required to increase the failure load for a
dental implant based on this geometry and fixation rationale.
In a recent study by Cook79 using hydroxylapatite (HA) coated onto Ti-6Al-4V
cylinders in the same transcortical plug model, HA-coated samples did have larger
interfacial shear strengths (6.07 to 7.27 MPa) than uncoated pure titanium samples
(0.93 to 1.21 MPa) with implantation times from 5 to 32 weeks.
Assuming approximately the same interfacial areas of bone-implant contact for
all samples, this result means that HA samples have larger failure forces (about 500
N) than uncoated samples, but these values are still low compared to possible axial
components of in vivo forces.
It is also noteworthy that the pushout interfacial strength for HA-coated
cylinders was limited by the bond between HA and metal substrate rather than HA
and bone (90 percent of the cases at the 32-week implantation time failed by
separation of the Ti-6Al-4V cylinder from its HA coating). Further research is
needed to establish the biomechanical integrity of the coating in the presence of the
body environment and fatigue-type loading.
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
materials, Charnley pointed out that the only mechanical difference between glued
(bonded) and interlocking surfaces is the inability of simple mechanical interlocking
to resist perpendicular (tensile) forces tending to pull the surfaces apart.
It is implicit in Charnley's remarks that relative motion would cause fibrous
tissue formation and implant failure. Bioactive materials may be beneficial in
producing a bone-implant bond capable of resisting tensile forces across an interface.
One problem is that the extent to which tensile interfacial forces are present
depends on the specifics of the situation. Implant loading, implant geometry, and
mechanical properties of bulk implant and bone should be considered. Finite element
models of screw-shaped implants27 suggest that it is possible to have regions of
tensile separation at the interface if there is no bonding assumed in the model (Fig 4
).
Brånemark points to the importance of having intimate adaptation and
attachment of bone to the implant surface to resist tensile and shear loadings.88 Other
investigators believe it possible to design implants so the majority of load
transmission will be compressive,89 obviating the necessity for a bond to resist
tensile or shear loads. Two Dutch research teams90,91 are using hydroxylapatite
dental implants, intending that bone will bond along the surface and thus resist
tensile and shear loading. The best design rationale with respect to this issue awaits
continuing evaluation of both the bond strengths and the overall physiological
acceptability of the intraosseous stress fields produced by the various shapes of
implants.
For 45S5 bioglass, Hench and Wilson estimate bond strengths to be 117 MPa,80
but push-out experiments in animals (similar to those conducted by Cook) show
values of 3 MPa, which is little more than that for smooth titanium ( 1 MPa), and
less than that for hydroxylapatite-coated titanium (6 to 7 MPa).
Evidence indicates that bioactive implant materials may form interfaces that
resist tensile and shear forces. However, precise data on the bond strength and its
limitations remain to be fully documented, according to some researchers.
Finally, there has been a continuing concern about the mechanical properties of
bioactive materials themselves, since most are relatively brittle ceramics. Dutch
workers have seen fatigue fractures of HA implants in vivo, and are now using
prestressed cylinders to reduce the likelihood of such fractures.91
Osseointegration. Rationale. Brånemark92 coined the term osseointegration
(OI) to mean a direct structural and functional connection between ordered living
bone and the surface of a load-carrying implant. Brånemark's objective was to avoid
getting fibrous tissue. He sought direct bone-implant apposition instead.
The rationale was that if the deeper connective tissues were allowed to heal
properly around a dental implant, then the implant would be firmly fixed in bone and
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
better able to support forces and allow formation of a proper permucosal interface.
To achieve OI, he devised, developed, and tested an implant material (pure Ti),
geometry (screw shape), surgical protocol (slow speed bone cutting, two-stage
implantation), and appropriate prosthodontic techniques. He and his team evaluated
the system using biomechanical, biomaterial, biological, and clinical testing.93
Other workers have based their implant designs on the concept of obtaining
close bone apposition into screw threads or similar geometry. Not all of the designs
have involved two-stage implants; the hollow basket,70 and the single crystal
sapphire (Al2O3) implant71 are examples of one-stage implants in which the
observed bone-implant interface resembles, at least at the light microscopic level, the
close bone apposition seen in Brånemark-type fixtures.
Critique. In terms of the design process, the development of the OI system also
shows strengths and weaknesses.
The main strengths have been the published goals and rationale for design
features, followed by appropriate evaluations via theory and experiments. The
selection of a two-stage implant, the gentle surgical technique, and the screw-shaped
fixture geometry were devised to maximize stability of the fixture in bone during
postoperative healing, which discourages fibrous tissue formation.
Biomechanical evaluations of the OI system have included measurements of
closure forces in patients with OI fixtures8 discussions of the mechanics of load
transfer at the fixture-bone interface, and theoretical discussions of load sharing
among multiple fixtures.88
Also, biomechanical aspects of prosthodontic design have been discussed.22
Biomaterial evaluations have used optical and electron microscopy to characterize
the nature of the bone-implant interface,94 and surface analytical studies95 to relate
surface properties and tissue response.
However, even the OI system, which is arguably the most extensively
documented of all dental (if not orthopedic) systems, has some weaknesses.
• What is the exact structural definition of OI? Over what percentage of the total
surface area of a fixture must there be direct bone contact for OI to exist? (The
percentage may depend on the relative amounts of cortical versus cancellous bone at
implantation sites—Fig 6.) Must there be a bond between bone and the fixture in
order for OI to exist, and if so, what is the nature and strength of the bond?
• What is the detailed functional definition of OI? What rules govern the alleged
mechanically related bone remodeling adjacent to fixtures? Are existing fixtures
optimized with respect to load transfer in cancellous versus cortical bone? What are
the loading limits in vivo?
• Are fixtures stiffer than normal teeth, and if so, does this have clinical
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
dental implants in terms of the design process, which offers a framework to build an
understanding of the burgeoning dental implant field. In confronting the numerous
implant systems on the market, the clinician will do well to seek clear statements of
objectives, rationale, and measures of performance with respect to goals.
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
1. Eide AR, Jenison RD, Mashaw LH, Northrup LL: Engineering Fundamentals and
Problem Solving, ed 2. New York, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1986.
2. Brunski JB: Tooth and jaw, biomechanics of, in Webster J (ed): Encyclopedia of
Medical Devices and Instrumentation. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1988,
pp 2776-2788.
3. Craig RG (ed): Restorative Dental Materials ed 6. St. Louis, CV Mosby Co, 1980,
pp 60-6;.
4. Meng TR, Rugh JD: Biting force on overdenture and conventional denture patients.
J Dent Res 1983;62:249, abstr No. 716.
5. Ralph WJ: The effects of dental treatment on biting force. J Prosthet Dent
1979;41:143.
6. Colaizzi FA, Javid NS, Michael CG, Gibbs CJ: Biting force, EMG, and jaw
movements in denture wearers. J Dent Res 1984;63:329, abstr No. 1424.
7. Haraldson T, Karlsson U, Carlsson GE: Bite force and oral function in complete
denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil 1979;6:41.
8. Carlsson GE, Haraldson T: Functional response, in Brånemark P-I, Zarb G,
Albrektsson T (eds): Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Chicago, Quintessence Publ
Co Inc, 1986, pp 155-163.
9. Graf H: Occlusal forces during function, in Occlusion: Research on Form and
Function. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1975, p 90.
10. Harrison A, Lewis TT: The development of abrasion testing machine. J Biomed
Mater Res 1975;9:341.
11. Ahlgren J: Mechanism of mastication. Acta Odontol Scand 1966;24(suppl
44):100-104.
12. Graf H: Bruxism. Dent Clin North Am 1969;13:659.
13. Carlsson GE: Bite force and chewing efficiency. Front Oral Physiol 1974;1:265.
14. Brunski JB, Hipp JA: In vivo forces on endosteal implants: A measurement system
and biomechanical considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:82.
15. Wenz J, Berthoud C, El Wakad M, Hipp JA, Brunski JB: An osseointegrated
dental implant instrumented to sense bite forces. J Dent Res 1986;65:304, abstr
No. 1215.
16. Swanson SAV, Freeman MAR (eds): The scientific basis of total joint
replacement. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1977.
17. Park JB: Biomaterials Science and Engineering. New York, Plenum Publishing
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
Corp, 1984.
18. Cochran GVB: A Primer of Orthopaedic Biomechanics. New York, Churchill
Livingstone Inc, 1982.
19. Van Vlack LH: Materials Science and Engineering, ed 4. Reading, Mass,
Addison-Wesley 1980.
20. Williams DF, Roaf R: Implants in Surgery. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 1973.
21. Wainwright SA, Biggs WD, Currey JD, Gosline JM: Mechanical Design in
Organisms. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1982.
22. Glantz P-O: Aspects of prosthodontic design, in Brånemark P-I, Zarb G,
Albrektsson T (eds): Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Chicago, Quintessence Publ
Co Inc, 1985, pp 329-332.
23. Cowin SC, Van Buskirk WC, Ashman RB: Properties of bone, in Skalak R, Chien
S (eds): Handbook of Bioengineering. New York, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1987, pp
2.1-2.27.
24. Weiss CM: Tissue integration of dental endosseous implants: Description and
comparative analysis of the fibro-osseous integration and osseous integration
systems. Oral Implantol 1986,12:169-214.
25. Brunski JB, Schock RB: Mechanical behavior of a fibrous tissue interface of an
endosseous dental implant. Trans 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for
Biomaterials, Clemson, SC, 1987, p 41.
26. Hori RY, Lewis JL: Mechanical properties of the fibrous tissue found at the
bone-cement interface following total joint replacement. J Biomed Mater Res
1982;16:921.
27. Hipp JA, Brunski JB, Shephard MS, Cochran GVB: Finite element models for
implants in bone: Interfacial assumptions, in Schneider E, Perren SA (eds):
Biomechanics: Current Interdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985, pp 447-452.
28. Brunski JB: The influence of force, motion, and related quantitites of the response
of bone to implants in Fitzgerald RH (ed): Non-Cemented Total Hip
Arthroplasty. New York, Rave Press, 1988, pp 7-21.
29. Hodosh M, Povar M, Shklar G: The polymer dental implant concept. J Prosthet
Dent 1969;22:371.
30. Linkow LI, Glassman PE, Asnis ST: Macroscopic and microscopic studies of
endosteal blade-vent implants (six-month dog study). Oral Implantol 1977;3:281.
31. Piliero SJ, Schnitman PA, Pentel L, Dennison TA: Histopathology of oral
endosteal metallic implants in dogs. J Dent Res 1973;52:1117.
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
32. Gourley IM, Richards LW, Cordy DR: Titanium endosteal dental implants in the
mandibles of beagle dogs. A two-year study. J Prosthet Dent 1976,36:550.
33. Listgarten MA, Lai CH: Ultrastructure of the intact interface between an
endosseous epoxy resin dental implant and the host tissues. J Biol Buccale
1975;3:13.
34. Ethridge EC: The effect of different materials on oral tissue compatibility. J Metals
1976 28:14.
35. Brånemark P-I, Briene U, Adell R, Hansson BO, Lindstrom J, Ohlsson A:
Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses I. Experimental studies. Scand J
Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81.
36. Albrektsson T, Brånemark P-I, Hansson H-A, Kasemo B, Larsson K Lundstrom I,
McQueen DH, Skalak R: The interface zone of inorganic implants in vivo. Ann
Biomed Eng 1983;11:1.
37. Hassler CR, McCoy LG, Downes R, Russel O: Ceramic tooth implants in baboons.
J Dent Res 1977;56:A117.
38. Karagianes MT, Westerman RE, Rasmussen JJ, Lodmell AN: Development and
evaluation of porous dental implants in miniature swine. J Dent Res 1976;55:85.
39. Brunski JB, Moccia AF, Pollack SR, Korostoff E, Trachtenberg DI: The influence
of functional use of endosseous dental implants on the tissue-implant interface.
Part I Histological aspects. J Dent Res 1979;58:1953.
40. Adell R: Long-term treatment results, in Brånemark P-I, Zarb G, Albrektsson T
(eds): Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Chicago, Quintessence Publ Co Inc, 1985, p
175.
41. Cowin SC, Lanyon LE, Rodan G: Functional adaptation in bone tissue. Calc Tiss
Intl 1984;36(suppl 1):S1-S155.
42. Black J: The Biological Performance of Materials. New York, Marcel Dekker Inc,
1981.
43. Smith DC, Williams DF (eds): Biocompatibility of dental materials, in CRC Series
in Biocompatibility. Boca Raton, Fla, CRC Press, 1982 (Vols I-IV).
44. Andrade J: Surface analysis of materials for medical devices and diagnostic
products. Med Dev and Diag Ind 1980;2:22.
45. Baier RE: Conditioning surfaces to suit the biomedical environment. Recent
progress. J Biomech Eng 1982;104:257.
46. Kasemo B, Lausmaa J: Metal selection and surface characteristics, in Brånemark
P-I, Zarb G, Albrektsson T (eds): Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Chicago,
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
Fig. 1
Biomechanical and biomaterial subproblems are part of dental implant design. They
involve in vivo forces and moments, interfacial load transmission, and interfacial tissue
attachment and response.
Fig.
Charles English, VA Hospital, Augusta, Ga).
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
Fig.
supporting implants and teeth. The interfacial tissues, in turn, have a biomechanical
function in that they must support the abutments.
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
Fig.
JOMI on CD-ROM, 1988 Feb (85-97 ): Biomaterials and Biomechanics in Dental Implant … Copyrights © 1997 Quinte…
Fig.
5 When any biomaterial is implanted into tissue, there are a number of possible
biological reactions that must be addressed by implant designers. (Reprinted with
permission from Andrade.44)
Fig. 7 A
simplified biomechanical model illustrating the relevance of the "stiffness" of implants
versus natural teeth. If abutments and their interfaces are represented as simple elastic
springs, then the fraction of the applied load P taken by each abutment is controlled by
the relative values of k 1 k2, and k3.