The Biomechanical Analysis of Relative Position Between Implant and Alveolar Bone: Finite Element Method

Huang, Chia-Hong; Lan, Ting-Hsun; Lee, Huey-Er; Wang, Chau-Hsiang

doi:10.1902/jop.2010.100388

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12 Moreover, the peak compressive stress has been found to provide more reliable information in the analysis of bone resorption compared with the peak tensile stress. 10 Therefore, bone resorption due to overloading should be expected when the compressive stress exceeds 100 to 130MPa in the cortical bone. 21 In the present study, the implant placed at the crestal level (BO model) exerted a peak compressive stress of 233.9 MPa under centric loading, which is above the physiological limit for cortical bone tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,8,9 Although a previous study using finite element analysis (FEA) reported that the peak compressive stress at the crestal cortical bone was higher around subcrestal implants than around implants placed at bone level, 10 other studies reported that subcrestal placement displaces the stress away from the crestal cortical bone. 11,12 Therefore, this lower stress concentration in the crestal cortical bone can explain the occurrence of osseointegration coronal to the abutment-fixture interface in cases of subcrestal implant placement with Morse taper connection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 The principal stress was computed at the crestal cortical, trabecular, and apical cortical bone. This offers the possibility of distinguishing between tensile and compressive stresses; 10 the maximum principal stress represents the peak tensile stress and the minimum principal stress assigns the peak compressive stress. In addition, bone strain was computed and horizontal and vertical implant displacements measured at the platform level.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the biomechanical influence of apical bone anchorage on a single subcrestal dental implant using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Four different bone anchorage designs were simulated on a posterior maxillary segment using one implant with platform switching and internal Morse taper connection as follows: 2 mm subcrestal placement with (SW) or without (SO) the implant apex engaged into the cortical bone or position at bone level with anchorage only in the crestal cortical (BO) bone or with bicortical fixation (BW). Each implant received a premolar crown, and all models were loaded with 200 N to simulate centric and eccentric occlusion. The peak tensile and compressive stress and strain were calculated at the crestal cortical, trabecular, and apical cortical bone. The vertical and horizontal implant displacements were measured at the platform level. FEA indicated that subcrestal placement (SW and SO) created lower stress and strain in the crestal cortical bone compared with crestal placement (BO and BW models). The SW model exhibited lesser vertical and horizontal implant micromovement compared with the SO and BO models under eccentric loading; however, stress and strain were higher in the apical cortical bone. The BW model exhibited the lowest implant displacement. These results indicate that subcrestal placement decreases the stress in the crestal cortical bone of dental implants, regardless of apical anchorage; however, apical cortical anchorage can be effective in limiting implant displacement. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of possible remodeling around the apex on the success of subcrestal implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is reasonable for clinicians to avoid premature contact, especially premature contact of the pontic when the CFPD is used. Huang et al (2011) revealed that both loading type and implant position were crucial for the stress distribution in bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of proximal contact strength on the three-dimensional displacements of implant-supported cantilever fixed partial dentures under axial loading

Peng

Chen

Wang

et al. 2013

J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Objective: This study investigated the effect of proximal contact strength on the three-dimensional displacements of cantilever fixed partial denture (CFPD) under vertically concentrated loading with digital laser speckle (DLS) technique. Methods: Fresh mandible of beagle dog was used to establish the implant-supported CFPD for specimen. DLS technique was employed for measuring the three-dimensional displacement of the prosthesis under vertically concentrated loading ranging from 200 to 3 000 g. The effect of the contact tightness on the displacement of CFPD was investigated by means of changing the contact tightness. Results: When an axial concentrated loading was exerted on the pontic of the implant-supported CFPD, the displacement of the CFPD was the greatest. The displacement of the prosthesis decreased with the increase of contact strength. When the contact strength was 0, 0.95, and 3.25 N, the displacement of the buccolingual direction was smaller than that of the mesiodistal direction but greater than that of the occlusogingival direction. When the force on the contact area was 6.50 N, the mesiodistal displacement of the prosthesis was the biggest while the buccolingual displacement was the smallest. Conclusions: The implantsupported CFPD is an effective therapy for fully or partially edentulous patients. The restoration of the contact area and the selection of the appropriate contact strength can reduce the displacement of the CFPD, and get a better stress distribution. The most appropriate force value is 3.25 N in this study.

show abstract

“…Thus, when combined with well-designed clinical studies, the results of the current study could guide new strategies for addressing challenges associated with managing stress distribution in implant dentistry. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to limitations such as factors related to the methodology, computer simulation and linearity elastic analysis, which consider bone tissue to be isotropic and homogenous and apply static occlusal loading (24,25). Therefore, additional controlled and randomized clinical studies should be conducted in order to fully explore and evaluate the clinical implications of various biomechanical parameters in implant dentistry.…”

Section: D Fea Of Implants Varying Diameter and Connectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Varying Diameter and Connection Type in Implants with High Crown-Implant Ratio

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of varying the diameter, connection type and loading on stress distribution in the cortical bone for implants with a high crownimplant ratio. Six 3D models were simulated with the InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0 and SolidWorks 2011 software programs. Models were composed of bone from the posterior mandibular region; they included an implant of 8.5 mm length, diameter Ø 3.75 mm or Ø 5.00 mm and connection types such as external hexagon (EH), internal hexagon (IH) and Morse taper (MT). Models were processed using the Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs and by using an axial force of 200 N and oblique force of 100 N. Results were recorded in terms of the maximum principal stress. Oblique loading showed high stress in the cortical bone compared to that shown by axial loading. The results showed that implants with a wide diameter showed more favorable stress distribution in the cortical bone region than regular diameter, regardless of the connection type. Morse taper implants showed better stress distribution compared to other connection types, especially in the oblique loading. Thus, oblique loading showed higher stress concentration in cortical bone tissue when compared with axial loading. Wide diameter implant was favorable for improved stress distribution in the cortical bone region, while Morse taper implants showed lower stress concentration than other connections.

show abstract

The Biomechanical Analysis of Relative Position Between Implant and Alveolar Bone: Finite Element Method

Abstract: Both loading type and implant position were crucial for stress distribution in bone. The supracrestal 1 implant position may not be ideal to avoid overloading the alveolar bone surrounding implants.

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

Effect of proximal contact strength on the three-dimensional displacements of implant-supported cantilever fixed partial dentures under axial loading

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Varying Diameter and Connection Type in Implants with High Crown-Implant Ratio

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About