Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study of a "wing-type" implant on stress distribution and bone resorption at the alveolar crest

  • Park, Jong-Wook (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Kim, Sin-Guen (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Choi, Dong-Won (Department of Beauty Skin Care, Kyungmin College) ;
  • Choi, Mi-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Yoon, Youn-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Park, Jun-Woo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Choi, Dong-Ju (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
  • Received : 2012.08.31
  • Accepted : 2012.10.29
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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 ($30N/m^2$, $35N/m^2$, $40N/m^2$, and $45N/m^2$) 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 $21.5979N/m^2$, $25.1974N/m^2$, $29.7971N/m^2$, and $32.3967N/m^2$ when $30N/m^2$, $35N/m^2$, $40N/m^2$, and $45N/m^2$ were loaded, respectively. The maximum stresses measured for the root form type were $23.0442N/m^2$, $26.9950N/m^2$, $30.7257N/m^2$, and $34.5584N/m^2$ when $30N/m^2$, $35N/m^2$, $40N/m^2$, and $45N/m^2$ 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Chung JM, Jo KH, Lee CH, Yu WJ, Lee KB. Finite element analysis of peri-implant bone stress influenced by cervical module configuration of endosseous implant. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:394-405.
  2. Eriksson RA, Albrektsson T. The effect of heat on bone regene-ration: an experimental study in the rabbit using the bone growth chamber. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984;42:705-11.
  3. Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, Bidez MW. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support. Implant Dent 2005;14:108-16.
  4. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82:232-7.
  5. Piattelli A, Vrespa G, Petrone G, Iezzi G, Annibali S, Scarano A. Role of the microgap between implant and abutment: a retrospective histologic evaluation in monkeys. J Periodontol 2003;74:346-52.
  6. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-83.
  7. Sanavi F, Weisgold AS, Rose LF. Biologic width and its relation to periodontal biotypes. J Esthet Dent 1998;10:157-63.
  8. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol 2002;73:322-33.
  9. Van de Velde T, Collaert B, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Effect of implant design on preservation of marginal bone in the mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:134-41.
  10. Bozkaya D, Muftu S, Muftu A. Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:523-30.
  11. 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.
  12. Brunski JB. In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:99-119.
  13. Abu-Hammad O, Khraisat A, Dar-Odeh N, El-Maaytah M. Effect of dental implant cross-sectional design on cortical bone structure using finite element analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2007;9: 217-21.
  14. Bischof M, Nedir R, Abi Najm S, Szmukler-Moncler S, Samson J. 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 2006;17:512-20.

Cited by

  1. FEA model analysis of the effects of the stress distribution of saddle-type implants on the alveolar bone and the structural/physical stability of implants vol.38, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0054-4