Three Dimensional Evaluation of a Dental Implant in Different Angles by Finite Element Method

Introduction: Recently, teeth drawbacks, which account a source of discomfort for people and also decrease self-confident among them, can be correct with dental implants. Objective: In this paper, precise modeling of the various geometric sections for a dental implant (number 5) is performed. Materials and Methods: The rate of loading on the dental implant is variability considered in three angles of 0, 15 and 25 degrees at a time interval of 0 to 1 seconds to apply a force similar to the chewing cycle. By examining the stress and strain patterns in the spongy, components, fixture, spongiform, buccal and lingual bones a model is employed in order to obtain the exact distribution of stress and strain within the bone and the angled abutment. Results: According to the obtained results, the angle of 25 degrees is an ideal model in the dental implant. These results also indicate that the areas around the buccal and lingual neck are more susceptible to damage in the location of the attachment to the fixture. Conclusions: We will see a lot of bone resorption after a long time due to the increase in stress and strain in the compact bones and bone formation. Whereas in spongy bone, unlike compress bone, low stress results in a very high strain that is ideal and declines the bone resorption. The increase of the angle enlarges stress in the fixture that it is important not only for choosing the implant model but also the quality of the implant so that it can withstand high stress.

[1]  Z. Salehi,et al.  Bioprinting in Vascularization Strategies , 2019, Iranian biomedical journal.

[2]  M. Khani,et al.  Poly (3‐hydroxybutyrate‐co‐3‐hydroxyvalerate) improved osteogenic differentiation of the human induced pluripotent stem cells while considered as an artificial extracellular matrix , 2018, Journal of cellular physiology.

[3]  Heng-Li Huang,et al.  Impacts of 3D bone-to- implant contact and implant diameter on primary stability of dental implant. , 2017, Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi.

[4]  J. Szymańska,et al.  Marginal bone behavior around the dental implants with regard to the patient’s characteristics , 2017 .

[5]  S. Siervo,et al.  Flapless Versus Traditional Dental Implant Surgery: Long-Term Evaluation of Crestal Bone Resorption. , 2016, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[6]  P. Hujoel,et al.  Dental Implants in an Aged Population: Evaluation of Periodontal Health, Bone Loss, Implant Survival, and Quality of Life. , 2016, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[7]  Soon-Chul Choi,et al.  Three-dimensional evaluation of human jaw bone microarchitecture: correlation between the microarchitectural parameters of cone beam computed tomography and micro-computer tomography. , 2015, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[8]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction? , 2014, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[9]  G. Franceschini,et al.  Evaluation of Strength in the “Toronto” Osseous-Prosthesis System , 2010 .

[10]  Boualem Serier,et al.  Stress analysis in dental prosthesis , 2010 .

[11]  Boualem Serier,et al.  Analysis of the effect of load direction on the stress distribution in dental implant , 2010 .

[12]  H. Frost,et al.  Wolff's Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[13]  Daniel Chappard,et al.  Trabecular bone microarchitecture: a review. , 2008, Morphologie : bulletin de l'Association des anatomistes.

[14]  T. Guda,et al.  Probabilistic analysis of preload in the abutment screw of a dental implant complex. , 2008, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  I. Park,et al.  Fatigue characteristics of five types of implant-abutment joint designs , 2008 .

[16]  G. Throckmorton,et al.  Effects of bolus size and hardness on within-subject variability of chewing cycle kinematics. , 2008, Archives of oral biology.

[17]  G. Throckmorton,et al.  Bolus size and unilateral chewing cycle kinematics. , 2004, Archives of oral biology.

[18]  N. Hebela,et al.  Heterotopic Ossification , 2004, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[19]  H. Hayasaki,et al.  Quantification of human chewing-cycle kinematics. , 2000, Archives of oral biology.

[20]  W. Bloom,et al.  Calcification and ossification. Medullary bone changes in the reproductive cycle of female pigeons , 1941 .

[21]  H. De Bruyn,et al.  A multifactorial analysis to identify predictors of implant failure and peri-implant bone loss. , 2015, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[22]  C. Chiorean,et al.  Strain analysis of a human tooth with support tissues resorption , 2013 .

[23]  Stephan Arndt,et al.  Bone Remodeling Response During Mastication on Free-End Removable Prosthesis - a 3D Finite Element Analysis , 2010 .

[24]  T. Łodygowski,et al.  The Screw Loosening and Fatigue Analyses of Three Dimensional Dental Implant Model , 2006 .

[25]  A. Elgazzar,et al.  Heterotopic ossification. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.