Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.02.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Global biomechanical model for dental implants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The calculated results showed a trend similar to the interfacial shear strength results reported in vivo but the absolute values calculated are too high compared with the experimentally measured interfacial shear strengths (Hansson et al 2010). More compatible values can be obtained by also including the design of the implant, the bone anatomy and the bone quality (Hansson et al 2011). However, surface topography is not the only way of enhancing bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) as chemical surface modifications have also resulted in faster osseointegration (Sul et al 2006) despite a less rough surface than considered optimal for bone ingrowth (Sul et al 2009; Wennerberg & Albrektsson 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The calculated results showed a trend similar to the interfacial shear strength results reported in vivo but the absolute values calculated are too high compared with the experimentally measured interfacial shear strengths (Hansson et al 2010). More compatible values can be obtained by also including the design of the implant, the bone anatomy and the bone quality (Hansson et al 2011). However, surface topography is not the only way of enhancing bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) as chemical surface modifications have also resulted in faster osseointegration (Sul et al 2006) despite a less rough surface than considered optimal for bone ingrowth (Sul et al 2009; Wennerberg & Albrektsson 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is only a slight difference between the S a values for the TS + 8 nm and TS + 22 nm surfaces, but the lower value obtained for the smaller particles indicates that the curvature of the particles are reflected in the surface roughness. The root mean square of the slope ( S dq ) has been shown to correlate with the interface shear strength and is thus an important parameter to investigate for dental implant applications [28, 29]. From a biomechanical point of view, a large S dq value is desired giving the TS + P25 surface an advantage.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The anodized surfaces also show higher S dq values compared with the reference. According to the biomechanical model recently developed, a higher S dq value indicates larger interfacial retentions strength with the bone and in consequence better osseointegration.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%