00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

0 Ansichten8 SeitenApr 07, 2020

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF IMPLANT DESIGNS ARTICLE publication (1).docx

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF IMPLANT DESIGNS ARTICLE publication (1).docx

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

Gowthama Raaj K.C.*, Manimaran P., Dhinesh Kumar C., Saisadan D., abirami

Abstract:

Introduction:

Success or failure of dental implants depends on the amount of stress

transferred to the surrounding bone. Increased amount of loading to

Dept of prosthodontics, JKK

bone through implant cause failure, whereas decrease in amount of

Natraja dental college and loading to bone causes improved success rate of implants.

hospital, komarapalayam, Biomechanical interaction between implant and bone decides the long

Namakkal tamilnadu, India. term function or prognosis of dental implant system. To evaluate the

influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution. To

understand the stress distribution around bone implant interface. To

understand the response of bone, under axial and non-axial loading

conditions. Finite element 3D mandibular model was made using CBCT

of patient with completely edentulous mandible and in that model five

posterior bone segments were selected. Nobel Replace Select Tapered

implant with diameter and length 3.5x10mm, 4.3x10mm, 3.5x11.5mm

and 4.3x11.5mm respectively were selected and three dimensionally

modelled using Creo 2.0 parametric Pro/E software. Bone and implant

models were assembled as 20 models and finite element analysis was

done using ANSYS workbench v17.0 under axial and non-axial loads.

Under axial load and non-axial loads 3.5x10mm implant showed

maximum von mises stress and strain in both cortical and cancellous

bone whereas implant with diameter and length 4.3x11.5mm showed

minimum von mises stress and strain in both cortical and cancellous

bone. In axial and non-axial loads amount of stress distribution around

implant and bone interface is influenced by diameter and length of

implant in cortical and cancellous bone respectively. Increased diameter

of the implant produces the minimum stress in cortical bone. Increased

length of the implant produces the minimum stress in cancellous bone.

element analysis, non-axial load and tapered implant.

Introduction: used to determine the information about stress and

A key factor for the success or failure of a strain in implant-bone structure57.

dental implant is the manner in which stresses are Aim:

transferred to the surrounding bone. Load transfer To evaluate the influence of variable length

from implants to surrounding bone depends on the and diameter of implant on stress distribution in

type of loading, the bone–implant interface, the length cortical and cancellous bone. To understand the

and diameter of the implants, the shape and pattern of stress and strain distribution around implant

characteristics of the implant surface, the prosthesis surface with variable length and diameter under axial

type, and the quantity and quality of the surrounding and non-axial loading conditions. To understand the

bone39. The finite element analysis (FEA) is an response of cortical and cancellous bone, under axial

upcoming and significant research tool for and non-axial loading conditions.

biomechanical analyses in biological research. It is an

ultimate method for modelling complex structures and Materials and methods:

analysing their mechanical properties. FEA has now

become widely accepted as a non-invasive and Nobel replace select tapered implant with sizes

excellent tool for studying the biomechanics and the 3.5x10mm, 4.3x10mm, 3.5x11.5mm, 4.3x11.5mm

influence of mechanical forces on the biological and posterior mandibular segment five regions were

systems. The finite element method (FEM) is selected using CBCT scan. Cortical bone , cancellous

basically a numerical method to analyse stresses and bone and implas were modelled using creo 2.0.

deformations in the structures of any given Twenty model assemblies were analysed under finite

geometry21. The structure is discretized into the so element method using ANYS workbench 17.0.

called ‘finite elements’ connected through nodes. The mechanical properties are shown in table 1, contact

type, arrangement and total number of elements between the models were given in table 2 and force

impact the accuracy of the results. FEA allows applied in the abutment were given in table 3. The

researchers to predict stress distribution in the contact models were subjected to axial (load 1) 100N, non

area of the implants with cortical bone and around the axial bucco lingual (load 2) 50N and non-axial

apex of the implants in trabecular bone. The mesiodistal (load 3) 50N, from these load von mises

biomechanical load management is dependent on the stress and strain values were evaluated. For statistical

nature of the applied force and the functional surface analyses four implant were grouped as G1, G2, G3

area over which the load is dissipated. The principal and G4 respectively. ANOVA was used as statistical

factors that influence the load transfer at the bone test.

implant interface includes implant geometry which Table 1 shows the material properties applied to the

includes diameter and length, thread pitch, shape, cortical bone model, cancellous bone model and

depth in the case of threaded implants, the type and implant model.

magnitude of loading, implant material properties, Table 1: Mechanical properties of different material used in the

quality and quantity of the surrounding bone, type of model

loading in prosthesis, surface structure, surgical

procedures, and the nature of the bone–implant Material Young’s Poisson’s Reference

interface15. FEA is capable of providing detailed modulus( ratio (

quantitative data at any location within the (MPa)

mathematical model. Thus, FEA has become a Cortical 13000 0.30 9,71

valuable analytical tool in implant dentistry 22. Stress bone

analysis of dental implant is very necessary for the Cancellous 690 0.30 9,71

investigation of bone turnover and maximum bone

anchorage success. Incorrect loading or overloading

may lead to distributed bone turnover and consequent Implant 102000 0.35 9,71

implant loss. Previous literature have shown that the (Titanium)

cortical bone-implant interface has a higher

concentration of stress and implant having greater Table 2: Contact Type between the Three Dimensional Models

diameter produces minimum stress. Bone quality also Cortical Cancellou

Materials Implant

influences the long term success of implant treatment, bone s bone

poor bone quality reduces the success rates. Load

transfer to bone implant interface depends on number, Cortical bone -- Bonded Frictional

position, design, geometry of the implant, abutment

connection, quality and quantity of surrounding bone.

Cancellous bone Bonded -- Frictional

Since clinical determination of stress and strain

distribution in bone is not possible, therefore an

alternative technique should be used. So here finite Implant Frictional Frictional --

element (FE) analysis, which is a reliable method, is

Table 3: Load (force) and magnitude Graph 3: Mean Stress values in Implant - Load 1

Axial (100N)

12

Load Magnitude 10

9.78 10.01

9.37 9.5

8.67 8.57

8 6.47 6.47 6.36

6.08 6.3

Axial 100 N 6 5.24

4

Non-axial (Bucco 2

50 N

Lingual) 0

Non-axial (Mesio

50 N Graph 4: Mean Stress values in Cancellous bone - Load

Distal)

2 Buccolingual (50N)

1.4

Fig 3: Stress and strain analysis in 3.5x10mm implant 1.28

1.2

Load 1 - Axial (100N) 1.06

1 0.96

Stress distribution pattern in Stress distribution 0.81

0.79 0.78

cortical and cancellous bone pattern in implant 0.8 0.68

0.63 0.63

0.6

0.39

0.4 0.35

0.24

0.2

Strain formation in Strain formation in

cortical and cancellous implant 0

bone

Graph 5: Mean Stress values in Implant - Load 3 Mesiodistal

(50N)

35 32.55

30.22

30

Graph 1: Mean Stress values in cortical bone - 25

24.67 23.9

19.91

18.73

14.49

15 13.05

4.342 10

4.090

5.03

3.330 5 2.27 3.32 2.39

2.812

0

G1 G2 G3 G4

Mean Mean

Group Mean load 1 Load 2 Load 3

Graph 2: Mean Stress values in Cancellous bone - G1 4.342 5.889 2.404

Load 1 Axial (100N) G2 3.330 4.782 1.458

7 G3 4.090 5.8 2.484

6.41

5.97 G4 2.812 4.266 0.926

6

Table 5: Mean von mises value stress value in cancellous

5 4.34 4.29 bone and implant

4 Cancellous bone Implant surface

Gro Mea

Mean

3 ups n

Load

Mean Mean

load Load Mean Load 2 Mean

2

1 3 load 1 Load 3

2 1.47 Coronal part G1 0.634 0.786 1.234 8.670 24.582 30.224

0.94 0.84 0.98 G2 0.402 0.346 0.516 6.466 11.218 19.912

1 0.63

0.4 0.44 0.35 G3 0.438 0.776 1.156 8.57 19.71 32.554

G4 0.354 0.244 0.45 5.24 12.916 18.726

0 Middle part G1 1.474 0.808 1.712 9.778 16.018 24.666

G2 0.94 0.680 1.45 6.08 5.98 13.05

G3 0.836 0.630 1.128 10.008 16.354 23.9

G4 0.976 0.388 0.886 6.296 6.572 14.494

Apical part G1 6.406 1.062 3.418 9.368 3.536 5.034

G2 4.338 0.958 2.138 6.468 2.514 2.272

G3 5.974 1.276 1.532 9.502 2.998 3.32

G4 4.294 0.630 1.762 6.36 1.85 2.39

and apical part of implant. It was found from the

analysis that G1 is having greater stress and strain

than G2 because lesser diameter of G1 than G2 but

Results:

same length, G2 shows lesser stress and strain than

Under Load-1 Axial (100N) at cortical bone G3 because of lesser length of G2 comparing to G3.

the significant difference in the mean values of stress Since G1 and G3 having same diameter there is a

and strain was found among the groups G1, G2, G3 lesser significant difference in stress and strain

and G4 and their p value is greater than 0.05. In between G1 and G3. Since G3 and G4 having same

cortical bone stress and strain distribution was length there is lesser significant difference in stress

influenced by diameter of implant than length and and strain between G3 and G4. G2 shows greater

taper, so diameter factor is mainly taken is taken into stress and strain than G4 because of lesser length of

consideration. It was found from the analysis that G1 G2 comparing to G4, hence it was concluded that G4

is having greater stress and strain than G2, G2 is is most effective than G1, G2 and G3, because of

having lesser stress and strain than G3. Since G1 and greater diameter and greater length of G4 comparing

G3 having same diameter there is a lesser significant to G1 and G3. In implant surface, coronal part, apical

difference in stress and strain between G1 and G3. part and middle part show uniform distribution of

Since G2 and G4 having same diameter there is lesser stress and strain. Mean stress and strain distribution

significant difference in stress and strain between G2 under this was pictorially represented in Graph 3 and

and G4. G3 shows greater stress and strain than G4 4 respectively.

hence it is concluded that G2 and G4 is most effective

Under Load-2 Non-Axial Buccolingual (50N) at

than G1 and G3, because of greater diameter of G4

cortical bone the significant difference in the mean

comparing to G1 and G3. The significant difference in

values of stress and strain was found among the

the mean stress and strain among the four groups with

groups G1, G2, G3 and G4 and their p value is greater

respect to coronal part, middle part and apical part of

than 0.05. In cortical bone stress and strain

cancellous bone was analyzed and the results are

distribution was influenced by diameter of implant

shown in table 29. In coronal part significant

than length and taper, so diameter factor is mainly

difference in the mean stress and strain among the

taken is taken into consideration. It was found from

four groups was found as their p value is less than

the analysis that G1 is having greater stress and strain

0.05. In cancellous bone stress and strain distribution

than G2, G2 is having lesser stress and strain than G3.

was influenced by diameter, length and taper of

Since G1 and G3 having same diameter there is a

implant. It was found from the analysis that G1 is

lesser significant difference in stress and strain

having greater stress and strain than G2 because lesser

between G1 and G3. Since G2 and G4 having same

diameter of G1 than G2 but same length, G2 shows

diameter there is lesser significant difference in stress

greater stress and strain than G3 because of lesser

and strain between G2 and G4. G3 shows greater

length of G2 comparing to G3. Since G1 and G2

stress and strain than G4 hence it is concluded that G2

having same length there is a lesser significant

and G4 is most effective than G1 and G3, because of

difference in stress and strain between G1 and G2.

greater diameter of G4 comparing to G1 and G3.

Since G3 and G4 having same length there is lesser

Mean stress and strain distribution under this was

significant difference in stress and strain between G3

pictorially represented in Graph 7 and 8 respectively.

and G4. G2 shows greater stress and strain than G4

The significant difference in the mean stress and

because of lesser length of G2 comparing to G4,

strain among the four groups with respect to coronal

hence it was concluded that G4 is most effective than

part, middle part and apical part of cancellous bone

G1, G2 and G3, because of greater diameter and lesser

was analyzed and the results are shown in table 32. In

length of G4 comparing to G1 and G3. In cancellous

coronal part significant difference in the mean stress

bone, apical part shows more stress and strain than

and strain among the four groups was found as their p

coronal and middle part. Mean stress and strain

value is less than 0.05. In cancellous bone stress and

distribution under this was pictorially represented in

strain distribution was influenced by diameter, length

Graph 3 and 4 respectively. The significant difference

and taper of implant. It was found from the analysis

in the mean stress and strain among the four groups

that G1 is having greater stress and strain than G2

with respect to coronal part, middle part and apical

because lesser diameter of G1 than G2 but same

part of implant surface was analyzed and the results

length, G2 shows greater stress and strain than G3

are given in table 30. In coronal part significant

because of lesser length of G2 comparing to G3. Since

difference in the mean stress and strain among the

G1 and G2 having same length there is a lesser

four groups was found as their p value is less than

significant difference in stress and strain between G1

0.05. Similarly significant difference in the mean

and G2. Since G3 and G4 having same length there is

stress and strain was found among the groups G1, G2,

lesser significant difference in stress and strain

G3 and G4 as their p value is less than 0.05 at middle

between G3 and G4. G2 shows greater stress and

part as well as in apical part of implant. In implant

strain than G4 because of lesser length of G2

surface, stress and strain distribution was influenced

comparing to G4, hence it was concluded that G4 is

by diameter in coronal part, length and taper in middle

most effective than G1, G2 and G3, because of greater significant difference in the mean stress and strain

diameter and greater length of G4 comparing to G1 among the four groups was found as their p value is

and G3. In cancellous bone, apical part shows more less than 0.05. In cancellous bone stress and strain

stress and strain than coronal and middle part. Mean distribution was influenced by diameter, length and

stress and strain distribution under this load was taper of implant. It was found from the analysis that

pictorially represented in Graph 9 and 10 respectively. G1 is having greater stress and strain than G2 because

The significant difference in the mean stress and lesser diameter of G1 than G2 but same length, G2

strain among the four groups with respect to coronal shows greater stress and strain than G3 because of

part, middle part and apical part of implant surface lesser length of G2 comparing to G3. Since G1 and

was analyzed and the results are given in table 33. In G2 having same length there is a lesser significant

coronal part significant difference in the mean stress difference in stress and strain between G1 and G2.

and strain among the four groups was found as their p Since G3 and G4 having same length there is lesser

value is less than 0.05. Similarly significant difference significant difference in stress and strain between G3

in the mean stress and strain was found among the and G4. G2 shows greater stress and strain than G4

groups G1, G2, G3 and G4 as their p value is less than because of lesser length of G2 comparing to G4,

0.05 at middle part as well as in apical part of implant. hence it was concluded that G4 is most effective than

In implant surface, stress and strain distribution was G1, G2 and G3, because of greater diameter and

influenced by diameter in coronal part, length and greater length of G4 comparing to G1 and G3. In

taper in middle and apical part of implant. It was cancellous bone, apical part shows more stress and

found from the analysis that G1 is having greater strain than coronal and middle part. Mean stress and

stress and strain than G2 because lesser diameter of strain distribution under this load was pictorially

G1 than G2 but same length, G2 shows lesser stress represented in Graph 15 and 16 respectively. The

and strain than G3 because of lesser length of G2 significant difference in the mean stress and strain

comparing to G3. Since G1 and G3 having same among the four groups with respect to coronal part,

diameter there is a lesser significant difference in middle part and apical part of implant surface was

stress and strain between G1 and G3. Since G3 and analyzed and the results are given in table 36. In

G4 having same length there is lesser significant coronal part significant difference in the mean stress

difference in stress and strain between G3 and G4. G2 and strain among the four groups was found as their p

shows greater stress and strain than G4 because of value is less than 0.05. Similarly significant difference

lesser length of G2 comparing to G4, hence it was in the mean stress and strain was found among the

concluded that G4 is most effective than G1, G2 and groups G1, G2, G3 and G4 as their p value is less than

G3, because of greater diameter and greater length of 0.05 at middle part as well as in apical part of implant.

G4 comparing to G1 and G3. In implant surface, In implant surface, stress and strain distribution was

coronal part shows more stress and strain than middle influenced by diameter in coronal part, length and

and apical part. Mean stress and strain distribution taper in middle and apical part of implant. It was

under this was pictorially represented in Graph 11 and found from the analysis that G1 is having greater

12 respectively. Table 34 shows that at cortical bone stress and strain than G2 because lesser diameter of

the significant difference in the mean values of stress G1 than G2 but same length. G2 shows lesser stress

and strain was found among the groups G1, G2, G3 and strain than G3 because of lesser length of G2

and G4 and their p value is greater than 0.05. In comparing to G3. Since G1 and G3 having same

cortical bone stress and strain distribution was diameter there is a lesser significant difference in

influenced by diameter of implant than length and stress and strain between G1 and G3. Since G3 and

taper, so diameter factor is mainly taken is taken into G4 having same length there is lesser significant

consideration. It was found from the analysis that G1 difference in stress and strain between G3 and G4. G2

is having greater stress and strain than G2, G2 is shows greater stress and strain than G4 because of

having lesser stress and strain than G3. Since G1 and lesser length of G2 comparing to G4, hence it was

G3 having same diameter there is a lesser significant concluded that G4 is most effective than G1, G2 and

difference in stress and strain between G1 and G3. G3, because of greater diameter and greater length of

Since G2 and G4 having same diameter there is lesser G4 comparing to G1 and G3. In implant surface,

significant difference in stress and strain between G2 coronal part shows more stress and strain than middle

and G4. G3 shows greater stress and strain than G4 and apical part. Mean stress and strain distribution

hence it is concluded that G2 and G4 is most effective under this was pictorially represented in Graph 17 and

than G1 and G3, because of greater diameter of G4 18 respectively.

comparing to G1 and G3. Mean stress and strain

distribution under this was pictorially represented in Discussion:

Graph 13 and 14 respectively. The significant Clinical study reports that the predictable

difference in the mean stress and strain among the success rate of endosseous implants in many systems

four groups with respect to coronal part, middle part was above 90%11. Success or failure of implant and

and apical part of cancellous bone was analyzed and prosthesis is due to various biomechanical factors

the results are shown in table 35. In coronal part such as implant geometry which includes diameter,

length, taper, surface topography like thread pitch, al quantifies the vertical forces applied to dental

type and number, magnitude and direction of implants during oral functions. Implants in the molar

masticatory force to implant through abutment and position that were fixed to a premolar with a

prosthesis. Para functional force also plays a vital role prosthesis withstood maximum vertical forces of 60 to

in failure of implant treatment. Rangert et al16 also 120 N during chewing. Single molars and premolars

reported that patients with fractured implants were carried maximum vertical forces of 120 to 150 N.

diagnosed to have parafunctional activities. Petrie and Clenching in centric occlusion caused a load level of

Williams18 and Meijer et al11 observed that the length approximately 50 N for both natural and artificial

of implant had less influence on the amount of stress abutments7. So in this study 100N force was applied

levels than diameter did. Apart from the geometrical as axial load and 50N force was applied as

factors of implant other factors such as surface buccolingual and mesiodistal load. This analysis

coating like hydroxyapatite, plasma spray also induces shows that the stress/strain concentration is more at

the healing period and osseointegration of bone- the coronal part of the implant and on the cortical

implant interface. Finite element method is used to bone, these results coincides with the previous studies

analyze the complicated geometries under static and and also in vivo and in vitro clinical studies. The

dynamic load conditions with certain limitations stress concentration is more in cortical bone because

under various simulated environment types. Clinically of higher modulus of elasticity Pa which

measurement of stress and strain in bone and implant provides more rigidity and thus more capability to

by using strain gauge is impossible because of ethical withstand higher stress. On axial loading stress

reasons. Vertical force with certain magnitude from generated in G4 was comparatively less than that of

mastication induce axial forces and bending G1, G2 and G3. This is due to greater diameter of G4

movements that result in stress gradients in the than G1 and G3. More the osseointegrated surface

implant as well as bone in bone 23. Finite element area better will be the stress distribution in the

method is used to predict and measure the amount of surrounding bone. Minimum amount of stress was

stress and strain in contact area between bone and developed during axial loading as compared to

implant and also in apical part of implant. In this loading in non-axial direction. Luigi Baggi8 reported

study three dimensional finite element analysis was about the influence of implant diameter in stress

done rather than two dimensional because to visualize distribution in cortical bone-implant interface. The

the stress/strain distribution in all axes. In finite probable reason could be that as the load is applied

element modelling the structures modelled are parallel to the long axis of the implant, the ability of

simplified, simulated that reflects the reality. In this the implant and cortical and cancellous bone to

study the segment of mandible and implant are withstand stress increases. On buccolingual and

modelled three dimensional way. The mandibular mesiodistal loading conditions, less stress was shown

bone segments are simulated by taking CBCT and the by G4 than G1, G2 and G3 in cortical bone this due

scanned image segments are converted to three lesser diameter of G4 than G1 and G3. The non-axial

dimensional models with particular dimensions. The force is perpendicular to long axis of implant, it will

segments of modelled cortical and cancellous bone is deform more when compared to a solid implant of

around 10-15mm. In this study the cortical bone, greater diameter. Thus causing generation of more

cancellous bone and implant with abutment were stress in the cortical bone. The same reason is true for

assumed to be linearly elastic, homogenous and increased stress component in G1. There is a decrease

isotropic. O’Mahony and Williams13 reported about in stress magnitude during axial loading in G4 due to

the anisotropic properties of cancellous bone. increase diameter more stress was distributed amongst

However the cortical and cancellous bone has the implant and the cortical bone and thus, minimizes

anisotropic characteristics and regional stiffness the load on cancellous bone, which is more

variation, they are modelled isotropically because of susceptible to fracture because of its low modulus of

non-availability of sufficient scientific data to perform elasticity. During non-axial loads, stress was found to

the analysis and difficulty in establishing principle be more in G1 on the lingual and distal sides. The

axis geometry. For this analysis, the constraints at the reason is due to direction of force perpendicular to

end of the bone segment and force application on top long axis of implant. Because of low modulus of

of the abutment is within the physiological limit. elasticity of cancellous bone the load bearing capacity

These simplifications result from limitations of the decrease while elasticity increase. Thus, more strain

modelling procedure and thus give only a general can be seen especially during horizontal loading. Von

insight into the tendencies of stress/strain variations mises strain value of cancellous bone during axial

under average conditions, without attempting to loading is less compared to the value obtained during

simulate individual clinical situations. Although this horizontal loading even with the double the load i.e.

simplification could be expected to bring about 100N. This is because during axial loading the stress

quantitative changes in the results, it was not expected was distributed to all sides of the cancellous bone,

to influence them qualitatively. Therefore it is whereas in non-axial loading, stress concentration was

advisable to focus on qualitative comparison rather distributed in one side of the cancellous bone which is

than quantitative data from these analyses. Richter et opposite to the direction of force. Irrespective of the

direction and magnitude of loading, implant with follow finite element analysis to establish the true

abutment withstand maximum amount of stress nature of the biological system.

compared to any other component of the model. The

probable reason could be its high elastic modulus Summary and conclusion:

MPa which is nearly nine times the elastic This study was done to determine the

modulus of cortical bone Pa and nearly 173 distribution of stress/strain around the implant,

times the elastic modulus of cancellous bone cortical bone and cancellous bone. A three

Pa. during axial loading stress generated dimensional finite element method was used in this

within the implant was least as compared to the stress study. A geometric model of posterior mandibular

generated during buccolingual and mesiodistal region was generated using a CT scan data. Four

loading. The reason being that the direction of load implants of different diameter and length 3.5x10mm,

along the long axis of the implant provides maximum 4.3x10mm, 3.5x11.5mm and 4.3x11.5mm were

cross sectional area to withstand the stress. Loading of modeled and embedded in the section of bone,

an implant fixed with an abutment in a horizontal material properties and boundary conditions were

direction induces a certain amount of deformation in applied. Vertical load of 100N and a horizontal load

the system and causes bending of the abutment. This of 50N from buccolingual and mesiodistal directions

bending of abutment decreases with increasing were applied on the abutment. The results were

distance from the loading point. The displacement of anlysed using von mises and strain criteria. Despite

the implant depends on the magnitude bending of all the limitations of the methodology, the conclusions

components of the complete system including the are: By increasing the diameter of the implant the

bone, implant and abutment. In mesiodistal loading stress distribution in the cortical bone can be

the resistance offered by the supporting bone was less decreased which reduces the bone loss around the

than of bucco lingual loading, so greater stress is seen implant optimal stress improves the life time of

the mesiodistal side. By this study, it is clear that implant. Increased length of the implant produces the

implant with lesser diameter and length shows greater minimum stress in the cancellous bone which reduces

stress around the bone and implant. So diameter of the the resorption of cancellous bone. In axial and non-

implant should be considered as an important factor axial loads amount of stress distribution around

for implant longevity22, 23, 5, 6. Non axial loading cause implant and bone interface is influenced by diameter

more stress around the implant and bone than axial and length of implant in cortical and cancellous bone

loading so it will leads to reduction of longevity or respectively. Increased diameter of the implant

even failure of the implant- supported prosthesis. So produces the minimum stress in cortical bone. In

planning of occlusion is an important criteria to cancellous bone stress distribution was more in

improve the success rate by directing the axial loading coronal region irrespective of direction of force.

during centric movements. Very minimal loading Favourable distribution of stress and strain pattern

should be transferred to the implant and bone during occurs in axial loading condition. It was also

eccentric movements by establishing minimal concluded that axial loading of an implant appeared to

functions contact to avoid forces from non-axial be favorable direction of loading and improves the

direction. Even though finite element method is longevity of implant supported prosthesis.

accurate and precise method for analyzing structures,

present study had certain limitations. Firstly no References:

movement was allowed between the implant and the 1. Barbier, Vander Sloten, krzenski, schepers, Finite

bone during loading from different directions. The element analysis non axial versus axial loading of

implant was also assumed 100% osseointegrated,

oral implants in the mandible of dog, Journal of

which is never found in clinical situation. This would

oral rehab 1998 25:847-858.

alter forces transmitted to the supporting structures.

2. Chris C. L. Wyatt, George A. Zarb, Treatment

Next the cortical bone, cancellous bone and the

Outcomes of Patients With Implant-Supported

implant were considered to be isotropic and lastly the

Fixed Partial Prostheses, Int J Oral Maxillofac

static loads that are applied differed from the dynamic

Implants 1998;13:204–211.

loading encountered during function. Frictional

coefficient factor is applied in the contact region 3. Cynthia S. Petrie, John L. Williams, Comparative

between bone and implant, so the mathematical solver evaluation of implant designs: influence of

in workbench solve by assuming it as threaded diameter, length, and taper on strains in the

implant in bone. Finite element analysis is based on alveolar crest - A three-dimensional finite-element

mathematical calculations while living tissues are analysis, Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 16, 2005 / 486–

beyond the confines of set parameters and values 494.

since biology is not a computable entity. Therefore 4. Chen, X. Lu, N. Paydar, H. U. Akay, and W. E.

Finite element analysis should not be considered as a Roberts, “Mechanical simulation of the human

sole means of understanding behavior of a mandible with and without an endosseous

geometrical structure in a given environment19. Actual implant,” Medical Engineering and Physics, vol.

experimental techniques and clinical trials should 16, no. 1, pp. 53–61, 1994.

5. Dimililer, Gizem, Kücükkurt, Sercan, Cetiner, 17. Roxana Stegaroiu, Takahiro Sato, Haruka

Sedat, Biomechanical effects of implant number Kusakari, Osamu Miyakawa, Influence of

and diameter on stress distributions in maxillary Restoration Type on Stress Distribution in Bone

implant-supported overdentures, J prosthet dent Around Implants: A Three-Dimensional Finite

2017. Element Analysis, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

6. Eazhil R, Swaminathan SV, Gunaseelan M, 1998;13:82–90.

Kannan GV, Alagesan C., Impact of implant 18. Rees J. S., An investigation into the importance of

diameter and length on stress distribution in the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone as

supporting structures in finite element studies,

osseointegrated implants: A 3D FEA study, J Int.

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2001 28; 425-432.

Soc Prevent 19. Rho, R. B. Ashman, and H. Turner, “Young’s

7. Ernst-Jürgen Richter, In Vivo Vertical Forces on modulus of trabecular and cortical bonematerial:

Implants, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants ultrasonic and microtensile measurements,”

1995;10:99–108. Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 111–

8. Luigi Baggi; Ilaria Cappelloni; Michele Di 119, 1993.

Girolamo; Franco Maceri; Giuseppe Vairo, The 20. Shinichiro Tada, Roxana Stegaroiu, Eriko

influence of implant diameter and length on stress Kitamura, Haruka Kusakari, Influence of Implant

distribution of osseointegrated implants related to Design and Bone Quality on Stress/Strain

crestal bone geometry: A three-dimensional finite Distribution in Bone Around Implants: A 3-

element analysis, J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:422- dimensional Finite Element Analysis, J Oral

431 Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357–368.

21. Shilpa Trivedi, Finite element analysis: A boon to

9. Masayoshi Wadamoto, Yasumasa Akagawa,

dentistry, journal of oral biology and cranio facial

Yuuji Sato and Takayasu Kubo, The three-

research 2014; 200 -203.

dimensional bone interface of an osseointegrated

22. Shinichiro Tada, Roxana Stegaroiu, Eriko

implant I: A morphometric evaluation in initial

Kitamura, Haruka Kusakari, Influence of Implant

healing, J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:170-5. Design and Bone Quality on Stress/Strain

10. Miyuki Omori, Yuji Sato, Noboru Kitagawa, Yuta Distribution in Bone Around Implants: A 3-

Shimura and Manabu Ito, A biomechanical dimensional Finite Element Analysis, J Oral

investigation of mandibular molar implants: Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357–368.

reproducibility and validity of a finite element 23. Xi Ding, Xing-Hao Zhu, Sheng-Hui Liao, Xiu-

analysis model, International Journal of Implant Hua Zhang & Hong Chen, Implant–Bone

Dentistry (2015) 1:10.

Interface Stress Distribution in Immediately

11. Meijer HJ, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJ, Stress

Loaded Implants of Different Diameters: A Three-

distribution around dental implants: influence of

Dimensional Finite Element Analysis, Journal of

superstructure, length of implants, and height of

Prosthodontics 18 (2009) 393–402.

mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:96-102.

12. Oswal M.M, Amasi UN, Oswal MS, Bhagat AS.,

Influence of three different implant thread designs

on stress distribution: A three-dimensional finite

element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc

2016;16:359-65.

13. O’Mahony AM, Williams JL, Katz JO, Spencer

P., Anisotropic elastic properties of cancellous

bone from a human edentulous mandible, Clin

Oral Impl Res 2000: 11: 415–421.

14. Paul P. van Zyl , Niel L. Grundling, Con H.

Jooste, Eugéne Terblanche, Three-Dimensional

Finite Element Model of a Human Mandible

Incorporating Six Osseointegrated Implants for

Stress Analysis of Mandibular Cantilever

Prostheses, INT J Oral Maxillofac Implants

1995;10:51–57.

15. Prado FB, Rossi AC, Freire AR, Ferreira Caria

PH., The application of finite element analysis in

the skull biomechanics and dentistry. Indian J

Dent Res 2014;25:390-7.

16. Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, et al: Bending

overload and implant fracture: a retrospective

clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

1996;11:575.

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.