The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of bone-implant contact pattern on bone strain distribution: finite element method study

골-임플란트 접촉 양상에 따른 골 변형 연구: 유한요소법적 연구

  • Yoo, Dong-Ki (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Heum (Department of Applied Statistics, University of Suwon) ;
  • Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 유동기 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김성균 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 곽재영 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김진흠 (수원대학교 통계정보학과) ;
  • 허성주 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2011.04.25
  • Accepted : 2011.07.08
  • Published : 2011.07.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To date most of finite element analysis assumed the presence of 100% contact between bone and implant, which is inconsistent with clinical reality. In human retrieval study bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio ranged from 20 to 80%. The objective of this study was to explore the influence of bone-implant contact pattern on bone of the interface using nonlinear 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Materials and methods: A computer tomography-based finite element models with two types of implant (Mark III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$, Inplant$^{(R)}$) which placed in the maxillary 2nd premolar area were constructed. Two different degrees of bone-implant contact ratio (40, 70%) each implant design were simulated. 5 finite element models were constructed each bone-implant contact ratio and implant design, and sum of models was 40. The position of bone-implant contact was determined according to random shuffle method. Elements of bone-implant contact in group W (wholly randomized osseointegration) was randomly selected in terms of total implant length including cortical and cancellous bone, while ones in group S (segmentally randomized osseointegration) was randomly selected each 0.75 mm vertically and horizontally. Results: Maximum von Mises strain between group W and group S was not significantly different regardless of bone-implant contact ratio and implant design (P=.939). Peak von Mises strain of 40% BIC was significantly lower than one of 70% BIC (P=.007). There was no significant difference between Mark III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$ and Inplant$^{(R)}$ in 40% BIC, while average of peak von Mises strain for Inplant$^{(R)}$ was significantly lower ($4886{\pm}1034\;{\mu}m/m$) compared with MK III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$ ($7134{\pm}1232\;{\mu}m/m$) in BIC 70% (P<.0001). Conclusion: Assuming bone-implant contact in finite element method, whether the contact elements in bone were wholly randomly or segmentally randomly selected using random shuffle method, both methods could be effective to be no significant difference regardless of sample size.

연구 목적: 기존 대부분의 유한요소 연구에서는 100%의 골-임플란트 접촉을 가정하여 왔으나 인간사체연구(human retrieval study)에서는 골-임플란트 부착비율이 20-80%라고 보고되었다. 본 연구에서는 비선형 삼차원 유한요소법을 이용하여 실제적인 골-임플란트 접촉을 재현하기 위해 무작위 골접촉 양상을 비교연구하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 컴퓨터단층촬영에서 얻은 영상을 근거로 하여 제작한 골모형에 두 가지 디자인의 임플란트(MK III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$, Inplant$^{(R)})$를 상악제2소구치에 해당하는 위치에 식립한 모형을 만들었다. 골질은 골형 2로서 Lekholm과 Zarb의 분류를 따랐다. 각 임플란트 디자인마다 두 가지(40%, 70%)의골-임플란트 접촉비율을 가정하였다. 각디자인과 골접촉율마다 5개의 모형을 제작하여 총 40 개의 모형을 만들었다. 이골-임플란트 접촉을 무작위 섞기방식(random shuffle method)으로 하였고 피질골과 해면골을 다 포함하여 골유착을 시킨 군(wholly randomized osseointegration; W)과 피질골과 해면골을 분리하여 골접촉시키기 위해서 각 0.75 mm마다 무작위 골접촉을 시킨 군(segmentally randomized osseointegration; S)을 비교연구하였다. 결과: 골-임플란트 접촉율이나 임플란트 디자인에 상관없이 W군과 S군 간 maximum von Mises strain의 평균에 있어서 유의성 있는 차이가 없었다(P=.939). 골-임플란트 접촉율이40%보다70%가 von Mises strain이 유의하게 낮았다(P=.007). 골-임플란트 접촉율이 40%일때는 Inplant$^{(R)}$과 MK III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$의 변형율 간에는 유의성 있는 차이가 없었으나(P=.116), 골-임플란트 접촉율이 70%일때 Inplant$^{(R)}$에서는 $4886{\pm}1034\;{\mu}m/m$, MK III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$에서는 $7134{\pm}1232\;{\mu}m/m$로서 Inplant$^{(R)}$의 von Mises strain이MK III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$의 것보다 유의하게 낮았다(P<.0001). 결론: 골-임플란트 접촉을 가정함에 있어서 무작위 섞기방식(random shuffle method)을 이용하여 임플란트 전체에 대해서나 피질골과 해면골을 분리하여 무작위 골-임플란트 접촉을 시키든 간에 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없어서 표본의 크기에 상관없이 둘 다 유효한 방법이라 할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Roberts WE. Bone tissue interface. Int J Oral Implantol 1988;5:71-4.
  2. Block MS, Finger IM, Fontenot MG, Kent JN. Loaded hydroxylapatite-coated and grit-blasted titanium implants in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:219-25.
  3. Coelho PG, Marin C, Granato R, Suzuki M. Histomorphologic analysis of 30 plateau root form implants retrieved after 8 to 13 years in function. A human retrieval study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;91:975-9.
  4. Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. 3D-FEA of osseointegration percentages and patterns on implant-bone interfacial stresses. J Dent 1997;25:485-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00061-9
  5. Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, Tu MG, Ko CC, Shen YW. Bone stress and interfacial sliding analysis of implant designs on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: a non-linear finite element study. J Dent 2008;36:409-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.02.015
  6. Pessoa RS, Muraru L, Junior EM, Vaz LG, Sloten JV, Duyck J, Jaecques SV. Influence of implant connection type on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants - CT-based nonlinear, three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:219-34.
  7. Lian Z, Guan H, Ivanovski S, Loo YC, Johnson NW, Zhang H. Effect of bone to implant contact percentage on bone remodelling surrounding a dental implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:690-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.03.020
  8. Deng B, Tan KB, Liu GR, Lu Y. Influence of osseointegration degree and pattern on resonance frequency in the assessment of dental implant stability using finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1082-8.
  9. Sennerby L, Ericson LE, Thomsen P, Lekholm U, Astrand P. Structure of the bone-titanium interface in retrieved clinical oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:103-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020302.x
  10. Garetto LP, Chen J, Parr JA, Roberts WE. Remodeling dynamics of bone supporting rigidly fixed titanium implants: a histomorphometric comparison in four species including humans. Implant Dent 1995;4:235-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199500440-00002
  11. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Strocchi R, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Is insertion torque correlated to bone-implant contact percentage in the early healing period? A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of 17 human-retrieved dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:778-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01599.x
  12. Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:104-11.
  13. Lin CL, Wang JC, Ramp LC, Liu PR. Biomechanical response of implant systems placed in the maxillary posterior region under various conditions of angulation, bone density, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:57-64.
  14. Rubin PJ, Rakotomanana RL, Leyvraz PF, Zysset PK, Curnier A, Heegaard JH. Frictional interface micromotions and anisotropic stress distribution in a femoral total hip component. J Biomech 1993;26:725-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(93)90035-D
  15. Mellal A, Wiskott HW, Botsis J, Scherrer SS, Belser UC. Stimulating effect of implant loading on surrounding bone. Comparison of three numerical models and validation by in vivo data. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:239-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01000.x
  16. Ramos A, Simoes JA. Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys 2006;28:916-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.12.006
  17. Rho JY, Ashman RB, Turner CH. Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech 1993;26:111-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(93)90042-D
  18. Meyer U, Vollmer D, Bourauel C, Joos U. Sensitivity analysis of bone geometries around oral implants upon bone loading using finite element method. Comp Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 2001;3:553-59.
  19. Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo YC. Application of the finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2006;9:257-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255840600837074
  20. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115251
  21. Hattori Y, Satoh C, Kunieda T, Endoh R, Hisamatsu H, Watanabe M. Bite forces and their resultants during forceful intercuspal clenching in humans. J Biomech 2009;42:1533-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.040
  22. Chou HY, Jagodnik JJ, Muftu S. Predictions of bone remodeling around dental implant systems. J Biomech 2008;41:1365-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.01.032
  23. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26.
  24. Steinemann SG, Mausli PA, Szmukler-Moncler S. Betatitanium alloy for surgical implants. In: Froes FH, Caplan I, eds. Titanium' 92 Science and technology. Warrendale, PA: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1993. pp. 2689-96.
  25. Slaets E, Carmeliet G, Naert I, Duyck J. Early cellular responses in cortical bone healing around unloaded titanium implants: an animal study. J Periodontol 2006;77:1015-24. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050196
  26. Slaets E, Carmeliet G, Naert I, Duyck J. Early trabecular bone healing around titanium implants: a histologic study in rabbits. J Periodontol 2007;78:510-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060183
  27. Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericson LE. A morphometric and biomechanic comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:62-71.
  28. Lin CL, Wang JC, Ramp LC, Liu PR. Biomechanical response of implant systems placed in the maxillary posterior region under various conditions of angulation, bone density, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:57-64.
  29. Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357-68.
  30. Sato Y, Wadamoto M, Tsuga K, Teixeira ER. The effectiveness of element downsizing on a three-dimensional finite element model of bone trabeculae in implant biomechanics. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:288-91. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00390.x