Finite element analysis of dental implant neck effects on primary stability and osseointegration in a type IV bone mandible.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of implant neck design and cortical bone thickness by means of 3-D linearly elastic finite element analysis and to analyze primary and secondary stability of clinical evidence based on micromotion and principal stress. Four commercial dental implants, comparable in size, for a type IV bone and mandibular segments were created. Various parameters were considered, including the osseointegration condition (non- and full bonded), force direction (vertical and horizontal) and cortical bone thickness (0.3, 0.5 and 1mm). The force was considered a static load applied at the top of the platform. The magnitudes of the vertical and horizontal loading direction were 500 N and 250 N. Micromotion and principal stresses were employed to evaluate the failure of osseointegration and bone overloading, respectively. The results show that Maximum stress of the peri-implant bone decreased as cortical bone thickness increased. The stress concentration regions were located at the implant neck between the cortical bone and cancellous bone. The micromotion level in full osseointegration is less than that in non-osseointegration and it also decreases as a increasing of cortical bone thickness. Consequently, cortical bone thickness is a key factor for primary stability.

[1]  L. Song,et al.  Selection of optimal dental implant diameter and length in type IV bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2009, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[2]  Yew-Chaye Loo,et al.  Influence of bone and dental implant parameters on stress distribution in the mandible: a finite element study. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  Giuseppe Vairo,et al.  The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2008, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Dinçer Bozkaya,et al.  Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis. , 2004, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  Heng-Li Huang,et al.  An intra-oral hydraulic system for controlled loading of dental implants. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  S. M. Rajaai,et al.  Stress analysis on the bone around five different dental implants , 2001, 2001 Conference Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[7]  P Missika,et al.  Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  J. Hirsch,et al.  Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. , 1998, European journal of oral sciences.

[9]  J B Brunski,et al.  Avoid pitfalls of overloading and micromotion of intraosseous implants. , 1993, Dental implantology update.

[10]  J H Heegaard,et al.  Frictional interface micromotions and anisotropic stress distribution in a femoral total hip component. , 1993, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  Aslihan Usumez,et al.  Three-dimensional finite-element analysis of functional stresses in different bone locations produced by implants placed in the maxillary posterior region of the sinus floor. , 2005, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  U. Lekholm,et al.  Patient selection and preparation , 1985 .