Abutment, Dental implants, Finite element analysis, Stress analysis
Citation Information :
Tyagi R, Aggarwal R, Choudhary S, Malethia A, Saini N. A 3-D Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution on Implant-supported Fixed Prosthesis with Four Different Commercially Available Implant Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (8):835-840.
Aim: To investigate by the finite element analysis comparison of stress distribution on the cortical and cancellous bone in an implant-supported yttrium tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP FPD) in four different widely used implant systems under different loading conditions. Materials and methods: Four 3-D finite element analysis (FEA) models of mandible having different implant systems with dimensions 8.0 mm × 5 mm in the second premolar and molar region were developed. In these models, abutment was tightened and 3-unit implant-supported Y-TZP FPD were cemented. A lateral force component of 100 N at 30° to the occlusal plane and a vertical intrusive force component of 250 N were applied to the central fossa of the FDP and the stress on bone around the implant was analyzed by FEA. Results: In the four implant systems, the maximum stress values on the crestal bone differ for the different implant systems for the two loading conditions applied. In both cases, the maximum stress values on the cortical bone were in ADIN Touareg Closefit WP implants and the maximum stress on the cancellous bone was observed in the Nobel Speedy Groovy implants. Conclusion: The ADIN Touareg Closefit WP implant system induced maximum stress on the crestal bone in both axial and buccolingual loading. Nobel Speedy Groovy implant system favored more equitable load distribution to the peri-implant crestal bone when compared to the other three implant systems. Clinical significance: From this study, it was found that out of all the implants used for the study, the Nobel Speedy Groovy implant system favored more equitable load distribution due to the platform switch design contrary to the other systems and at the cancellous bone the least load was transferred by the Nobel Active implants due to the reverse buttress thread design and larger thread pitch.
Stegaroiu R, Kusakari H, Nishiyama S, et al. Influence of prosthesis material on stress distribution in bone and implant: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13(6):781–790.
Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, et al. Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20(5):449–456. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.002.
Jansaker AM, Lindahl C, Renvert H, et al. Nine to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part I: implant loss and associations to various factors. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33(4):283–289. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00907.x.
Watzek G. Endosseous implants: scientific and clinical aspects. Chicago: Quintessence Int; 1996. pp. 291–317.
Brunski JB. Implants in dentistry: essentials of endosseous implants for maxillofacial reconstruction. Biomechanics Dental Implants 1997;21:63–71.
Irving JT. Factors concerning bone loss associated with periodontal disease. J Dent Res 1970;49(2):262–267. DOI: 10.1177/00220345700490021001.
Carter DR, Van Der Meulen MC, Beaupré GS. Mechanical factors in bone growth and development. Bone 1996;18(1):5–10. DOI: 10.1016/8756-3282(95)00373-8.
Cowin SC. Bone mechanics handbook. 2nd ed., Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001. pp. 1–55.
Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA. Skeletal tissue mechanics. New York: Springer; 1998. pp. 127–178.
Natali AN, Pavan PG. Numerical approach to dental biomechanics. Dental biomechanics. London: Taylor and Francis; 2003. pp. 211–239.
Natali AN, Pavan PG. A comparative analysis based on different strength criteria for evaluation of risk factor for dental implants. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2002;5(2):127–133. DOI: 10.1080/10255840290032144.
Natali AN, Pavan PG, Ruggero AL. Analysis of bone-implant interaction phenomena by using a numerical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(1):67–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01162.x.
O'Mahony A, Williams J, Spencer P. Anisotropic elasticity of cortical and cancellous bone in the posterior mandible increases peri-implant stress and strain under oblique loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(6):648–657. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120614.x.
Hoshaw SJ, Brunski JB, Cochran GVB. Mechanical loading of branemark implants affects interfacial bone modeling and remodeling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:345–360.
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(6):523–530. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.07.024.
Mascarenhas R, Parveen S, Shenoy BS, et al. Infinite applications of finite element method. J Indian Orthod Soc 2018;52:142–150. DOI: 10.4103/jios.jios_242_18.
Lan TH, Du JK, Pan CY, et al. Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bone stress around implants with different thread designs and pitches in the mandibular molar area. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(2):363–369. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0517-z.
Oswal MM, Amasi UN, Oswal MS, et al. Thread designs on stress distribution: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(4):359–365. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052. 191283.
Pilliar RM, Deporter DA, Watson PA, et al. Dental implant design: effect on bone remodeling. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25(4):467–483. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820250405.