Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Masticatory forces acting on dental implants can result in undesirable stress in adjacent bone, which in turn can cause bone defects and the eventual failure of implants. PURPOSE A mathematical simulation of stress distribution around implants was used to determine which length and diameter of implants would be best to dissipate stress. MATERIAL AND METHODS Computations of stress arising in the implant bed were made with finite element analysis, using 3-dimensional computer models. The models simulated implants placed in vertical positions in the molar region of the mandible. A model simulating an implant with a diameter of 3.6 mm and lengths of 8 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, 14 mm, 16 mm, 17 mm, and 18 mm was developed to investigate the influence of the length factor. The influence of different diameters was modeled using implants with a length of 12 mm and diameters of 2.9 mm, 3.6 mm, 4.2 mm, 5.0 mm, 5.5 mm, 6.0 mm, and 6.5 mm. The masticatory load was simulated using an average masticatory force in a natural direction, oblique to the occlusal plane. Values of von Mises equivalent stress at the implant-bone interface were computed using the finite element analysis for all variations. Values for the 3 most stressed elements of each variation were averaged and expressed in percent of values computed for reference (100%), which was the stress magnitude for the implant with a length of 12 mm and diameter of 3.6 mm. RESULTS Maximum stress areas were located around the implant neck. The decrease in stress was the greatest (31.5%) for implants with a diameter ranging from of 3.6 mm to 4.2 mm. Further stress reduction for the 5.0-mm implant was only 16.4%. An increase in the implant length also led to a decrease in the maximum von Mises equivalent stress values; the influence of implant length, however, was not as pronounced as that of implant diameter. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, an increase in the implant diameter decreased the maximum von Mises equivalent stress around the implant neck more than an increase in the implant length, as a result of a more favorable distribution of the simulated masticatory forces applied in this study.

[1]  F Bosman,et al.  Loading conditions of endosseous implants in an edentulous human mandible: a three-dimensional, finite-element study. , 1996, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[2]  T. Kaus,et al.  The use of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: five-year clinical results of an ongoing prospective study. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  Y Akagawa,et al.  A comparative evaluation of mandibular finite element models with different lengths and elements for implant biomechanics. , 1998, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[4]  I Akpinar,et al.  A comparison of stress and strain distribution characteristics of two different rigid implant designs for distal-extension fixed prostheses. , 1996, Quintessence international.

[5]  P. Fielder,et al.  Implants: Bone physiology and metabolism. , 1987, CDA journal.

[6]  A. Carr,et al.  Histomorphometric analysis of implant anchorage for 3 types of dental implants following 6 months of healing in baboon jaws. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  G S Beaupré,et al.  Mechanical factors in bone growth and development. , 1996, Bone.

[8]  K. Bathe Finite Element Procedures , 1995 .

[9]  M Davarpanah,et al.  Apical-coronal implant position: recent surgical proposals. Technical note. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  M. Piotti,et al.  3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  F. Isidor,et al.  Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  Holmes Dc,et al.  Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. , 1997 .

[13]  H Lai,et al.  Influence of percentage of osseointegration on stress distribution around dental implants. , 1998, The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association.

[14]  U. Belser,et al.  Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  F. Mante,et al.  Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis--a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.