Load-carrying capacity of short implants in edentulous posterior maxilla: A finite element study

Demenko, Vladislav; Linetskiy, Igor; Linetska, Larysa; Yefremov, Oleg

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.02.003

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unsurprisingly, in studying different implant diameters, several authors [38][39][40][41] found better performances with the use of larger-diameter implants. The results presented in our study corroborate those obtained by other authors [4,42,43], who also found a good mechanical behavior of single-body implants, regardless of the material from which they were manufactured, concluding that small-diameter implants can be used in implant-supported rehabilitation with success and predictability rates similar to implants with a conventional diameter.…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 91%

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

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 91%

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

show abstract

“…This study on the location of the stress concentration area innovated when considering the non-linear contact interfaces, not considered in previous studies [18][19][20][21]. This method allowed to evaluate the stress distribution in the assembly of some components of prothesis (implant, screw, and metal framework).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Influence of Parafunctional Loads on the Bone-Prosthesis System: A Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis

Losada¹,

Gonçalves²,

Valin³

et al. 2021

JBiSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study evaluates the effects of occlusal loading on an implant-supported dental implant with external hexagon dental implant-abutment systems, using the finite element method analysis. Tensile analyses were performed to simulate different axial and obliquous masticatory loads. The influence of the variations in the contouring conditions of the interfaces was analyzed to weigh the osseointegration with linear and non-linear cases, by means of a parametric design. The geometry selected to place the prostheses was a jaw section, considering the properties of the set of cortical and trabecular bones. The results show that for non-linear contour conditions, the stress presents smaller value distributions and signals a different place in the screw-implant interface as the factor of the greater weight in this study. The location indicated that von Mises stress concentrations are not exclusive to the contact regions studied, moving to an area that is not in direct contact with the non-linear contact interfaces. In addition, the direction of load with an angle of 15 degrees presented the highest values of von Mises stress.

show abstract

“…Regarding the movement restriction of the implant, Mommaerts 15 assumes a displacement distribution restriction simulating the constraint introduced by the contact between the implant and the bone. In other investigations (Ishak et al 19 , Saini et al 20 , Demenko et al 21 , Field et al 22 and Geramy et al 23 ), the maxillary and jaw bones are also simulated, and some material properties are assumed for their cancellous and cortical parts, often noting different values of these properties. However, only Mommaerts 15 , 16 research is devoted to a similar type of implant to the one used in this study, as the rest of the references are focused on other types of implants where the different bones and their composition and layers play a more critical role.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to the definition of load cases, Mommaerts 15 , Demenko et al 21 , Kaman et al 24 and Liu et al 25 assumed a total maximum chewing force of around 150 N in the vertical direction for their implant and tooth bite studies. Other researchers [Ishak et al 19 , Saini et al 20 , Miyamoto et al 26 , Ujigawa et al 27 , Cattaneo et al 28 ] included a 300 N vertical force value derived from the chewing support of the masseter muscle.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement of an additively manufactured subperiosteal implant structure design by finite elements based topological optimization

Carnicero

Peláez

Restoy-Lozano

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To design a new subperiosteal implant structure for patients suffering from severe Maxillary Atrophy that lowers manufacturing cost, shortens surgical time and reduces patient trauma with regard to current implant structures. A 2-phase finite-element-based topology optimization process was employed with implants made from biocompatible materials via additive manufacturing. Five bite loading cases related to standard chewing, critical chewing force, and worst conditions of fastening were considered along with each specific result to establish the areas that needed to be subjected to fatigue strength optimization. The 2-phase topological optimization tested in this study performed better than the reference implant geometry in terms of both the structural integrity of the implant under tensile-compressive and fatigue strength conditions and the material constraints related to implant manufacturing conditions. It returns a nearly 28% lower volumetric geometry and avoids the need to use two upper fastening screws that are required with complex surgical procedures. The combination of topological optimization methods with the flexibility afforded by additively manufactured biocompatible materials, provides promising results in terms of cost reduction, minimizing the surgical trauma and implant installation impact on edentulous patients.

show abstract

Load-carrying capacity of short implants in edentulous posterior maxilla: A finite element study

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

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

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

Analysis of the Influence of Parafunctional Loads on the Bone-Prosthesis System: A Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis

Improvement of an additively manufactured subperiosteal implant structure design by finite elements based topological optimization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About