Occlusal load distribution through the cortical and trabecular bone of the human mid-facial skeleton in natural dentition: A three-dimensional finite element study

Janović, Aleksa; Šaveljić, Igor; Vukićević, Arso M.; Nikolić, Dalibor; Rakocevic, Zoran; Jovičić, Gordana; Filipović, Nenad; Djurić, Marija

doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2014.09.002

Cited by 35 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Occlusal forces are distributed through the mid-face skeleton in five vertical and two horizontal buttress planes 14. The buttress planes are the nasomaxillary, zygomaticomaxillary, pterygo-maxillary, sagittal, frontal, zygomatic and maxillary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cortical bone has been shown to be the primary support in the maxillary anterior 14. However, both cortical and trabecular bones are equally involved in load resistance in the posterior maxilla 14.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, both cortical and trabecular bones are equally involved in load resistance in the posterior maxilla 14. Nonetheless, osseous quality remains as the primary parameter for implant support 14…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review

Flanagan¹

2017

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implants are placed endosseously, and the bone is the ultimate bearer of the occlusal load. Patients are not uniform in the maximum bite force they can generate. The occlusal biting load in the posterior jaw is usually about three times of that found in the anterior. It is possible for supporting implants to be overloaded by the patients’ biting force, resulting in bone loss and failure of the fixture. Bite force measurement may be an important parameter when planning dental implant treatment. Some patients can generate extreme biting loads that may cause a luxation of the fixture and subsequent loss of osseointegration. A patient with low biting force may be able to have a successful long-term outcome even with poor anatomical bone qualities. Patients with a high bite force capability may have an increased risk for late component fracture or implant failure. There is no correlation of any bite force value that would indicate any overload of a given implant in a given osseous site. Nonetheless, after bite force measurement, a qualitative judgement may be made by the clinician for the selection of an implant diameter and length and prosthetic design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review

Flanagan¹

2017

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…be significantly weaker against the forces from other directions due to higher DA ( Figure 2). 28,39 Given that the facial skeleton commonly breaks during horizontal impacts causing lateral bending that is tensile in origin, 38 parative analysis with these studies should be made with caution. 38 This state is supported by recently detected predominance of compressive forces in the mid-facial skeleton during mastication as well as by significant association between degree of compressive stress and microstructural indices of the facial bones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between regional heterogeneity in the mid‐facial bone micro‐architecture and increased fragility along Le Fort lines

Janović

Milovanović

Hahn

et al. 2017

Dental Traumatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hypothesized associations between loading regimes, internal stress regimes, and shapes of biological structures are commonly evaluated using either simple beam models (e.g., Preuschoft et al, 1983; Hylander, 1984, 1985; Daegling, 1993, 2001; Hylander and Johnson, 1994; Ravosa, 1996, 2000; Ross and Hylander, 1996; Hylander et al, 1998, 2000; Daegling and Hylander, 2000; Ravosa et al, 2000; Ross, 2001; Metzger et al, 2005; Daegling and McGraw, 2009) or, more recently, complex finite element models (FEMs) (e.g., Ross et al, 2005; Strait et al, 2005; Kupczik et al, 2009; Panagiotopoulou and Cobb, 2011; Porro et al, 2013; Prado et al, 2016; Janovic et al, 2014, 2015; Cox et al, 2011; Smith et al, 2015; Benazzi et al, 2016; Ledogar et al, 2016a; McIntosh and Cox, 2016; Panagiotopoulou et al, 2016a, b; Smith and Grosse, 2016). These modeling methods are especially important for testing hypotheses regarding form–function relationships (design) in skeletons of fossil animals for which in vivo data are not available (e.g., Rayfield et al, 2001; Strait et al, 2009; Berthaume et al, 2010; Grine et al, 2010; Falkingham et al, 2011a,b; Dzialo et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2015; Ledogar et al, 2016b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo bone strain and finite element modeling of a rhesus macaque mandible during mastication

Panagiotopoulou

Iriarte-Díaz

Wilshin

et al. 2017

Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a commonly used tool in musculoskeletal biomechanics and vertebrate paleontology. The accuracy and precision of finite element models (FEMs) are reliant on accurate data on bone geometry, muscle forces, boundary conditions and tissue material properties. Simplified modeling assumptions, due to lack of in vivo experimental data on material properties and muscle activation patterns, may introduce analytical errors in analyses where quantitative accuracy is critical for obtaining rigorous results. A subject-specific FEM of a rhesus macaque mandible was constructed, loaded and validated using in vivo data from the same animal. In developing the model, we assessed the impact on model behavior of variation in (i) material properties of the mandibular trabecular bone tissue and teeth; (ii) constraints at the temporomandibular joint and bite point; and (iii) the timing of the muscle activity used to estimate the external forces acting on the model. The best match between the FEA simulation and the in vivo experimental data resulted from modeling the trabecular tissue with an isotropic and homogeneous Young’s modulus and Poisson’s value of 10 GPa and 0.3, respectively; constraining translations along X,Y, Z axes in the chewing (left) side temporomandibular joint, the premolars and the m1; constraining the balancing (right) side temporomandibular joint in the anterior-posterior and superior-inferior axes, and using the muscle force estimated at time of maximum strain magnitude in the lower lateral gauge. The relative strain magnitudes in this model were similar to those recorded in vivo for all strain locations. More detailed analyses of mandibular strain patterns during the power stroke at different times in the chewing cycle are needed.

show abstract

Occlusal load distribution through the cortical and trabecular bone of the human mid-facial skeleton in natural dentition: A three-dimensional finite element study

Cited by 35 publications

References 39 publications

Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review

Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review

Association between regional heterogeneity in the mid‐facial bone micro‐architecture and increased fragility along Le Fort lines

In vivo bone strain and finite element modeling of a rhesus macaque mandible during mastication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About