Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Comparative Evaluation of Implant Designs: Influence of Diameter,

Length And Taper on Stress and Strain In The Mandibular Segment - A


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.

Keywords: axial load, cancellous bone, cortical bone, finite


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

Load 1 Axial (100N) 20


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

Table 4: Mean von mises value stress value in cortical bone


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.