Research Article

Evaluation of Stress Transfer at Bone Implant Interface in Emulate Implant and Conventional Endosseous Implant: A Comparative 3-D Finite Element Analysis Study

S. Tyagi
I.T.S Dental College, India
* Corresponding author
K. Shetty
I.T.S Dental College, India
G. Issar
I.T.S Dental College, India
S. Rani
I.T.S Dental College, India
S. Kumar
Teerthankar Dental College, India
H. G. Jagadeesh
I.T.S Dental College, India
S. Khan
I.T.S Dental College, India
DOI icon 10.24018/ejdent.2020.1.5.29

Read Counter
203

Downloads
271

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2020-10-16
Published 2020-10-30

Read counter = 203 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Aim: Aim of this study was to evaluate and compare stress transfer at bone implant interface in customized root form implant and conventional endosseous implant.

Materials and methodology: A three-dimensional finite element model of Emulate implant and conventional endosseous implant (nobel active 4.2X11.5mm) was generated. The implants were restored with metal ceramic crown and subjected to 20 Mpa of axial applied stress. Resolved stresses were examined at four heights along the implant bone interface.

Results: In conventional endosseous implant with 100 % osseointegration higher stresses (1.01-0.12 MPa) were concentrated on the facial surface of crest of implant. The stresses decreased from junction of cortical bone and trabecular bone to the apex of implant (0.36 – 0.12 MPa). The maximum stresses on emulate implant with 100 % osseointegration were at the facial surface of the crest of implant (0.05 MPa) which were comparatively lesser than conventional endosseous implant (1.01 MPa).

Conclusion: The degree of osseointegration affected the stress levels or distributions around both implants. Crestal stresses were always higher than apical stress. When the implants were 100% osseointegrated, then stresses were higher on conventional endosseous implant while in case of 50% osseointegration, stresses were higher on emulate implant. 

Keywords: customized root form, endosseous, FEA, stress

References

  1. Gaviria L, Saleido J, Guda T. current trends in dental implants. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014:40:2-50.
     Google Scholar
  2. Chen et al. Design and manufacture of customized dental implants using reverse engineering and selective laser melting technology. J Pros Dent 2014:112(5):1089-1095.
     Google Scholar
  3. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989; 4:211–217.
     Google Scholar
  4. Sagara M, Akagawa Y, Nikai H, et al. The effects of early occlusal loading on one-stage titanium alloy implants in beagle dogs: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 1993; 69:281–288.
     Google Scholar
  5. Pirker W, Kocher A. Immediate, nonsubmerged, root-analogue zirconia implant in single tooth replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37:293-5.
     Google Scholar
  6. de Cos Juez FJ, Sánchez Lasheras F, Garcí Nieto PJ, Álvarez-Arenal A. Non-linear numerical analysis of a double-threaded titanium alloy dental implant by FEM. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2008;206:952-67.
     Google Scholar
  7. Chang JZ, Chen YJ, Tung YY, Chiang YY, Lai EH, Chen WP, et al. Effects of thread depth, taper shape, and taper length on the mechanical properties of mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141: 279-88.
     Google Scholar
  8. Siegele D, Soltesz U. Numerical investigations of the influence of implant shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:333–340.
     Google Scholar
  9. Roberts, W. E., Bone tissue interface. J Den Edu, 1988;52: 804-809.
     Google Scholar
  10. Block, M. S., Finger, I. M., Fontenot, M. G. and Kent, J. N., Loaded hydroxylapatite-coated and grit-blasted titanium implants in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1989;4:219-225.
     Google Scholar
  11. Lundgren, D., Laurell, L., Falk, H. and Bergendal, T., Occlusal force pattern during mastication in dentition with mandibular fixed partial dentures supported on osseointegrated implants. J Pros Dent, 1987;58:197-203.
     Google Scholar
  12. Falk, H., Laurell, L. and Lundgren, D., Occlusal force pattern in dentitions with mandibular implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses occluded with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1989; 4: 55-62.
     Google Scholar
  13. Anderson, D. J., Measurement of stress in mastication. J of Dent Research, 1956;35: 664-670.
     Google Scholar
  14. Hoshaw, S. J., Brunski, J. B. and Cochran, G. V. B., Mechanical loading of Branemark implants affects interfacial bone modeling and remodeling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1994; 9:345-359.
     Google Scholar
  15. Barth, E., Johansson, C. and Albrektsson, T., Histologic comparison of ceramic and titanium implants in cats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1990; 5,227-23.
     Google Scholar