Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite element method

Li, Ruyi; Wu, Zhanglin; Chen, Song; Li, Xiang; Wan, Qianbing; Xie, Guo; Pei, Xibo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.005

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the advantages, conflicting results have also emerged in FEA studies. For instance, Li et al [44], when evaluating implants inserted equicrestally and at 0.5 and 1 mm below the alveolar crest, reported fewer strains in the bone around equicrestal and −0.5 mm placed implants than at −1 mm placed implants. Similarly, in an FEA study focusing on D4 bone type [45], the lowest amount of stress was found in 0.5 mm subcrestally placed implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crestal and Subcrestal Placement of Morse Cone Implant–Abutment Connection Implants: An In Vitro Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Study

Comuzzi,

Ceddia,

Di Pietro

et al. 2023

Biomedicines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue of dental implant placement relative to the alveolar crest, whether in supracrestal, equicrestal, or subcrestal positions, remains highly controversial, leading to conflicting data in various studies. Three-dimensional (3D) Finite Element Analysis (FEA) can offer insights into the biomechanical aspects of dental implants and the surrounding bone. A 3D model of the jaw was generated using computed tomography (CT) scans, considering a cortical thickness of 1.5 mm. Subsequently, Morse cone implant–abutment connection implants were virtually positioned at the model’s center, at equicrestal (0 mm) and subcrestal levels (−1 mm and −2 mm). The findings indicated the highest stress within the cortical bone around the equicrestally placed implant, the lowest stress in the −2 mm subcrestally placed implant, and intermediate stresses in the −1 mm subcrestally placed implant. In terms of clinical relevance, this study suggested that subcrestal placement of a Morse cone implant–abutment connection (ranging between −1 and −2 mm) could be recommended to reduce peri-implant bone resorption and achieve longer-term implant success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crestal and Subcrestal Placement of Morse Cone Implant–Abutment Connection Implants: An In Vitro Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Study

Comuzzi,

Ceddia,

Di Pietro

et al. 2023

Biomedicines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, there was a need to balance the necessary increased accuracy with the available computational capacity. By adopting a size of 0.3 mm, a more accurate distribution of von Mises stress in the critical zone between the abutment and implant was achieved, especially when the implant was subjected to inclined occlusal loads, as defined by other studies in the literature [73][74][75] (Figure 15). After importing the 3D model into the FEA software (ANSYS 2023, Workbench, Canonsburg, PA, USA), the von Mises stress (expressed as equivalent stress) and strain (expressed as equivalent elastic strain) values in the implant, cap, and bone were evaluated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite‐Element Analysis Study Comparing Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Caps in a Conometric Connection between Implant and Prosthesis

Ceddia,

Romasco,

Comuzzi

et al. 2024

Adv Eng Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosthetic retention relies on the perfect adaptation between the cap and the abutment of a dental implant. The conometric connection ensures retention similar to cemented systems, preventing bacterial infiltration and sustaining a high implant success rate. Furthermore, the material used for the cap plays a crucial role in distributing stress on the implant components and bone. Traditionally, caps use Titanium (Ti), but ongoing research investigates Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for its bone‐like qualities and similar elasticity to Ti. This Finite Element Analysis (FEA) study compares stress and strain distributions between crestal and subcrestal implants using Ti and PEEK conometric caps, assessing retention through cap displacement to determine the material best suited for proper retention aligned with implant insertion depth. The findings indicate an improvement in stress and strain on trabecular bone, a reduction in stress on cortical bone, and thus enhanced implant stability due to higher stresses around the implant threads, particularly with PEEK coping and subcrestal placement. Consequently, PEEK emerged as a promising substitute for Ti in conometric caps as it absorbs stress more effectively, distributing it across prosthetics to counter stress‐shielding and prevent implant failure.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

“…The Finite Element Method (FEM) can be also used to study the behavior of dental implants basing on the depth of dental insertion into the bone tissue and is able to provide information about how the load distribution between the implant and the surrounding bone at different insertion depths. This may help identifying areas of increased strain or overload that could affect the stability and durability of the system [37][38][39][40][41][42]. Furthermore, FEA studies could help assessing how the insertion depth affects the implant primary stability, thereby identifying the ideal depth for achieving the optimal implant anchorage in bone tissue, since primary stability is considered a critical factor for successful bone integration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note that FEA is a numerical simulation tool, and its predictions depend on the accuracy of data and material properties used in the model. Therefore, FEA studies should be considered as a support for the interpretation of the results and further clinical decisions should be made basing on an overall assessment, also taking into account other patient-specific clinical and radiographic considerations [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the Stress and Strain Distribution in Cone-Morse Implant-Abutment Connection Implants Placed in an Equicrestal and Subcrestal Position

Pietro¹,

Ceddia²,

Romasco³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri-implant bone resorption has been reported around some implants after loading and this could create problems for the long-term stability of peri-implant soft and hard tissues. The causes are still not completely known, but a relevant importance could be assumed by the presence of a bacterial contamination at the micro-gap level of the implant-abutment junction. In this regard, external and internal implant-abutment assemblies have been shown to be much more permeable to bacterial colonization than Cone-Morse or conical connections. A subcrestal implant placement could have aesthetic advantages allowing a better prosthetic emergence profile. In literature controversial experimental and clinical results have been reported about bone resorption around implants placed equicrestally and subcrestally. Interestingly, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) studies revealed to be extremely useful for assessing the peri-implant bone strain and stress. Thus, the aim of this study was a FEA evaluation of implants with a Cone-Morse implant-abutment assembly (Implacil De Bortoli, São Paulo, Brazil) inserted into a bone block model (width: 10 mm, vertical height: 17.5 mm, thickness of the cortical area: 1.5 mm) mimicking equicrestal and subcrestal placements (1 and 2 mm). The results demonstrated that maximum stresses were observed within the cortical bone around the equicrestally placed implants, the lowest in the implant placed 2-mm subcrestally and intermediate stresses within the implant placed 1-mm subcrestally. Cortical bone was more stressed under lateral loads than axial loads. In conclusion, this FEA study suggested that implant placement at -1 mm could be recommended.

show abstract

Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite element method

Cited by 9 publications

References 46 publications

Crestal and Subcrestal Placement of Morse Cone Implant–Abutment Connection Implants: An In Vitro Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Study

Crestal and Subcrestal Placement of Morse Cone Implant–Abutment Connection Implants: An In Vitro Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Study

Finite‐Element Analysis Study Comparing Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Caps in a Conometric Connection between Implant and Prosthesis

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the Stress and Strain Distribution in Cone-Morse Implant-Abutment Connection Implants Placed in an Equicrestal and Subcrestal Position

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About