Study of a “wing-type” implant on stress distribution and bone resorption at the alveolar crest
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: Implants connect the internal body to its external structure, and is mainly supported by alveolar bone. Stable osseointegration is therefore required when implants are inserted into bone to retain structural integrity. In this paper, we present an implant with a “wing” design on its area. This type of implant improved stress distribution patterns and promoted changes in bone remodeling. Materials and Methods: Finite element analysis was performed on two types of implants. One implant was designed to have wings on its cervical area, and the other was a general root form type. On each implant, tensile and compressive forces (30 N/m2, 35 N/m2, 40 N/m2, and 45 N/m2) were loaded in the vertical direction. Stress distribution and displacement were subsequently measured. Results: The maximum stresses measured for the compressive forces of the wing-type implant were 21.5979 N/m2, 25.1974 N/m2, 29.7971 N/m2, and 32.3967 N/m2 when 30 N/m2, 35 N/m2, 40 N/m2, and 45 N/m2 were loaded, respectively. The maximum stresses measured for the root form type were 23.0442 N/m2, 26.9950 N/m2, 30.7257 N/m2, and 34.5584 N/m2 when 30 N/m2, 35 N/m2, 40 N/m2, and 45 N/m2 were loaded, respectively. Thus, the maximum stresses measured for the tensile force of the root form implant were significantly higher (about three times greater) than the wing-type implant. The displacement of each implant showed no significant difference. Modifying the design of cervical implants improves the strength of bone structure surrounding these implants. In this study, we used the wing-type cervical design to reduce both compressive and tensile distribution forces loaded onto the surrounding structures. In future studies, we will optimize implant length and placement to improve results. Conclusion: 1. Changing the cervical design of implants improves stress distribution to the surrounding bone. 2. The wing-type implant yielded better results, in terms of stress distribution, than the former root-type implant.
Abstract
Objectives: Implants connect the internal body to its external structure, and is mainly supported by alveolar bone. Stable osseointegration is therefore required when implants are inserted into bone to retain structural integrity. In this paper, we present an implant with a “wing” design on its area. This type of implant improved stress distribution patterns and promoted changes in bone remodeling. Materials and Methods: Finite element analysis was performed on two types of implants. One implant was designed to have wings on its cervical area, and the other was a general root form type. On each implant, tensile and compressive forces (30 N/m2, 35 N/m2, 40 N/m2, and 45 N/m2) were loaded in the vertical direction. Stress distribution and displacement were subsequently measured. Results: The maximum stresses measured for the compressive forces of the wing-type implant were 21.5979 N/m2, 25.1974 N/m2, 29.7971 N/m2, and 32.3967 N/m2 when 30 N/m2, 35 N/m2, 40 N/m2, and 45 N/m2 were loaded, respectively. The maximum stresses measured for the root form type were 23.0442 N/m2, 26.9950 N/m2, 30.7257 N/m2, and 34.5584 N/m2 when 30 N/m2, 35 N/m2, 40 N/m2, and 45 N/m2 were loaded, respectively. Thus, the maximum stresses measured for the tensile force of the root form implant were significantly higher (about three times greater) than the wing-type implant. The displacement of each implant showed no significant difference. Modifying the design of cervical implants improves the strength of bone structure surrounding these implants. In this study, we used the wing-type cervical design to reduce both compressive and tensile distribution forces loaded onto the surrounding structures. In future studies, we will optimize implant length and placement to improve results. Conclusion: 1. Changing the cervical design of implants improves stress distribution to the surrounding bone. 2. The wing-type implant yielded better results, in terms of stress distribution, than the former root-type implant.
참고문헌 (14)
- 정재민, "임플란트 경부형상이 주위골 응력에 미치는 영향에 관한 유한요소법적 분석", 대한치과보철학회지, 47(4), pp.374~405 (2009), 대한치과보철학회
- Eriksson RA, "The effect of heat on bone regenemmration: an experimental study in the rabbit using the bone growth chamber", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 42, pp.705~711 (1984)
- Misch CE, "A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support", Implant Dent, 14, pp.108~116 (2005)
- Broggini N, "Persistent acute inflammation at the implantabutment interface", J Dent Res, 82, pp.232~237 (2003)
- Piattelli A, "Role of the microgap between implant and abutment: a retrospective histologic evaluation in monkeys", J Periodontol, 74, pp.346~352 (2003)
- Hermann JS, "Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloadednon-submerged implants in the canine mandible", J Periodontol, 72, pp.1372~1383 (2001)
- Sanavi F, "Biologic width and its relation to periodontal biotypes", J Esthet Dent, 10, pp.157~163 (1998)
- Oh TJ, "The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science?", J Periodontol, 73, pp.322~333 (2002)
- Van de Velde T, "Effect of implant design on preservation of marginal bone in the mandible", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 12, pp.134~141 (2010)
- Bozkaya D, "Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis", J Prosthet Dent, 92, pp.523~530 (2004)
- Geng JP, "Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature", J Prosthet Dent, 85, pp.585~598 (2001)
- Brunski JB, "In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone", dental-implant interface, 1999, pp.13, 99~119
- Abu-Hammad O, "Effect of dental implant cross-sectional design on cortical bone structure using finite element analysis", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 9, pp.217~221 (2007)
- Bischof M, "A five-year life-table analysis on wide neck ITI implants with prosthetic evaluation and radiographic analysis: results from a private practice", Clin Oral Implants Res, 17, pp.512~520 (2006)