Experimental evaluation of stress distribution with narrow diameter implants: A finite element analysis

Cinel, Sezgi; Çelik, Ersan; Sağırkaya, Elçin; Şahın, Onur

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.024

Cited by 33 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that the overloading risk associated with NDIs under splinting conditions, specifically when connected by a dental bridge consisting of few dental units, as a FEA study already reported [15], would be comparable to that around RDIs. With this outcome, the capabilities of NDIs, which in FEA studies perform well for the replacement of single upper and lower second premolars, are extended [33]. Accordingly, NDIs splinted by simple dental bridges could be considered in scenarios valid for RDIs but not contemplated for NDIs until now because of their higher resorption risk when operating individually [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We resubmit the manuscript entitled "FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NARROW DENTAL IMPLANTS" (DENTA-19-00040) after addressing your request of a major revision. We have addressed all the comments of the reviewers, which helped us to improve the manuscript. Below you will find our answers to the comments. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the final manuscript. Figures 3 and 4 have been modified as well to comply with comment 7.Comment 1: Results. The authors described that "The reason for distinguishing between minimum and maximum principal stress is to see the difference between compressive and tensile stress patterns respectively." However, the positive values of maximum/minimum principal stress mean tensile stress. The negative values of maximum/minimum principal stress mean compressive stress. Revise all related points. Answer 1: We thank you for your constructive recommendations to improve the quality of our work. Indeed, the sentence was not strictly correct since it is true that positive values of principal stress mean tension and negative ones mean compression. In the new version of the manuscript we have solved this ambiguity with a more precise sentence: "The reason for distinguishing between minimum and maximum principal stress is to identify the areas where overloading occurs due to either compressive or tensile stress, respectively, according to the maximum normal stress criterion defined above". In fact, based on this stress criterion used for brittle materials, overloading of bone occurs when the maximum principal stress exceeds its tensile strength or when the minimum principal stress exceeds its compressive strength.Comment 2: Discussion. References in the Discussion section is not enough. Ex. The last sentence in the first paragraph should be referred similar studies.Answer 2: Thanks for this observation. In the new manuscript, we have included more references supporting our discussion. Comment 3: Some results such as "3.0mm =2.20 mm³" were described in the Discussion section. These results must be moved to the Results section. Make sure and revise all related points. Answer 3: We included those data in the Discussion section since they give rise to a particular analysis from the general data provided in the Figure 3 (Results section). In any case, it is true they fit better in the Results section. We have moved this and other numerical data to the Results section while keeping their interpretation in the Discussion section. Comment 4: Also, what's the meaning of OV? Define it.Answer 4: Overloading is a major trigger for the damage and resorption of peri-implant bone. OV means overloaded volume and is related to the stress criterion we have considered to determine the areas under overloading in bone, in accordance with similar studies. It should be noted that bone can be damaged by tensile or compressive stress.Response to Reviewers (without Author Details) Answer 5: Thanks for this observation. This has been solved in the new version of the manuscript.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other authors [21,28,[34][35][36] have evaluated the behavior of implants with different connections and observed that they presented a superior mechanical behavior when compared with hexagonal connections (internal and external), demonstrating a lower tension under oblique forces and the superior dissipation capacity in implants with Morse taper connections, even under angled loads. For this reason, a two-piece implant and reduced platform with a Morse taper connection were selected for our comparison.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: A finite element study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the stress distribution on three implant models with narrow and extra-narrow diameters using the finite element method (FEA). Materials and methods Dental implants of extra-narrow diameter of 2.5 mm for a one-piece implant (group G1), a narrow diameter of 3.0 mm for a one-piece implant (group G2) and a narrow diameter of 3.5 mm for a two-piece implant with a Morse taper connection (group G3). A three-dimensional model was designed with cortical and cancellous bone, a crown and an implant/abutment set of each group. Axial and angled (30°) loads of 150 N was applied. The equivalent von Mises stress was used for the implants and peri-implant bone plus the Mohr-Coulomb analysis to confirm the data of the peri-implant bone. Results In the axial load, the maximum stress value of the cortical bone for the group G1 was 22.35% higher than that the group G2 and 321.23% than the group G3. Whereas in angled load, the groups G1 and G2 showing a similar value (# 3.5%) and a highest difference for the group G3 (391.8%). In the implant structure, the group G1 showed a value of 2188MPa, 93.6% higher than the limit. Conclusions The results of this study show that the extra-narrow one-piece implant should be used with great caution, especially in areas of non-axial loads, whereas the one- and two-piece narrow-diameter implants show adequate behavior in both directions of the applied load.

show abstract

“…Finite element analysis showed that with an increase of implant diameter, stress F I G U R E 1 Clinical case of three 3.3 mm NDI, inserted in pristine bone F I G U R E 2 Clinical case of a 4.1 mm SDI in combination with horizontal augmentation and strain on the implant-bone interfaces significantly decreased, especially when the diameter increased from 3.3 to 4.1 mm (Ding et al, 2009). However, another finite element analysis indicated that Ti and Ti-Zr alloys can be used successfully as narrow-diameter implants in the second premolar area (Cinel et al, 2018). Meta-analysis indicated comparable implant survival rates between NDI of category 2 (∅ 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm) and category 3 (∅ 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm) compared to SDI (Schiegnitz & Al-Nawas, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%