不同种植体外形设计对上颌窦提升术后种植体周围应力分布的影响

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2020.04.004

上海口腔医学 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (4): 355-358.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2020.04.004

不同种植体外形设计对上颌窦提升术后种植体周围应力分布的影响

左书玉^*, 王璇^*, 吴海威, 张东升

山东第一医科大学附属省立医院口腔科,山东济南 250012

收稿日期:2019-03-27 修回日期:2019-05-15 出版日期:2020-08-25 发布日期:2020-09-11
通讯作者: 张东升,E-mail:ds63zhang@163.com
作者简介:左书玉（1962-）,女,大学专科,副主任医师,E-mail：sdkqzsy@163.com;王璇（1988-）,女,博士,医师,E-mail:sunflower0622wx@163.com。^*共同第一作者

Biochemical analysis of stress distribution of dental implants with different body shapes after maxillary sinus augmentation

ZUO Shu-yu, WANG Xuan, WU Hai-wei, ZHANG Dong-sheng

Department of Stomatology, Shandong Provincial Hospital affiliated to Shandong First Medical University. Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China

Received:2019-03-27 Revised:2019-05-15 Online:2020-08-25 Published:2020-09-11

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：比较不同种植体外形设计对上颌窦提升术后种植体周围生物力学的影响。方法：在D3型上颌骨简化模型上利用三维有限元法分析3种不同外形设计的种植体在植骨与不植骨条件下的应力分布情况。假设所有材料都是线弹性、连续材料,向种植体施加150 N的倾斜力,测量种植体周围骨组织的最大等效力（equivalent von-Mises,EQV）。采用Ansys Workbench 14.5软件包对数据进行测量分析,采用SPSS 17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：各组应力集中区域均位于种植体颈部皮质骨区域。不同种植体外形设计对种植体周围皮质骨最大EQV值无显著影响,但锥形种植体较其他种植体的周围松质骨最大EQV值显著上升,上颌窦提升术后植骨可以降低各组种植体周围最大EQV值。结论：锥形种植体用于上颌后牙区种植修复时,可能引起种植体周围松质骨应力变大,增加种植体周围骨吸收的风险。上颌窦提升后植骨,可降低种植体周围压力负载。

关键词: 种植体外形设计, 上颌窦提升, 三维有限元分析

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the stress distribution of dental implants with different body shapes after maxillary sinus augmentation. MRTHODS: Three different implant models varying in implant shape were investigated in D3-type maxilla. All materials were assumed to be linear elastic, homogenous and isotropic. An oblique force of 150 N was applied to the implant. Maximal equivalent von-Mises of supporting bone around implants were measured. All of the models were measured by Ansys Workbench 14.5. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0 software package. RESULTS: Highest stress of supporting bone emerged on the crestal cortical site around the implant neck. There was no significant difference in the maximum EQV of supporting cortical bone between different groups; the maximum EQV of supporting trabecular bone in the tapered implant group was much higher than other groups; application of grafts reduced the maximum EQV of both cortical and trabecular bone in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tampered implant can induce elevated stress distribution of the upper trabecular bone, which may promote marginal bone loss. Application of grafts after maxillary sinus augmentation could favors in reducing the stress loading of dental implants.

Key words: Implant body shape, Maxillary sinus augmentation, 3-D finite element analysis

中图分类号:

R782.1

左书玉, 王璇, 吴海威, 张东升. 不同种植体外形设计对上颌窦提升术后种植体周围应力分布的影响[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2020, 29(4): 355-358.

ZUO Shu-yu, WANG Xuan, WU Hai-wei, ZHANG Dong-sheng. Biochemical analysis of stress distribution of dental implants with different body shapes after maxillary sinus augmentation[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2020, 29(4): 355-358.

参考文献

[1] Eckert SE, Wollan PC.Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially endentulous jaws[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 1998, 79(4): 415-421.
[2] Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P, et al.Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2001, 12(5): 423-432.
[3] Sani E, Veltri M, Cagidiaco MC, et al.Sinus membrane elevation in combination with placement of blasted implants: a 3-year case report of sinus augmentation without grafting material[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 37(10): 966-969.
[4] Elias CN, Rocha FA, Nascimento AL, et al.Influence of implant shape, surface morphology, surgical technique and bone quality on the primary stability of dental implants[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2012, 16: 169-180.
[5] Lin S, Shi S, LeGeros RZ, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analyses of four designs of a high-strength silicon nitride implant[J]. Implant Dent, 2000, 9(1): 53-60.
[6] Ausiello P, Franciosa P, Martorelli M, et al.Effects of thread features in osseo-integrated titanium implants using a statistics-based finite element method[J]. Dent Mater, 2012, 28(8): 919-927.
[7] Lekholm U, Zarb GA.Patient selection and preparation. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry [M]. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company, 1985: 199-209.
[8] Koca OL, Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A.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[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2005, 93(1): 38-44.
[9] Erkmen E, Meric G, Kurt A, et al.Biomechanical comparison of implant retained fixed partial dentures with fiber reinforced composite versus conventional metal frameworks: a 3D FEA study[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2011, 4(1): 107-116.
[10] Lin D, Li Q, Li W, et al.Mandibular bone remodeling induced by dental implant[J]. J Biomech, 2010, 43(2): 287-293.
[11] Lee JH, Frias V, Lee KW, et al.Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: a literature review[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2005, 94(4): 377-381.
[12] Chang SH, Lin CL, Hsue SS, et al.Biomechanical analysis of the effects of implant diameter and bone quality in short implants placed in the atrophic posterior maxilla[J]. Med Eng Phys, 2012, 34(2): 153-160.
[13] Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, et al.Influence of marginal bone resorption on stress around an implant-a three-dimensional finite element analysis[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2005, 32(4): 279-286.
[14] Petrie CS, Williams JL.Comparative evaluation of implant designs: Influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest: a three-dimensional finite-element analysis[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2005, 16(4): 486-494.
[15] Herzberg R, Dolev E, Schwartz D.Implant marginal bone loss in maxillary sinus grafts[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2006, 21(1): 103-110.
[16] Merickse-Stern R, Aerni D, Buser D, et al.Long-term evaluation of non-submerged hollow cylinder implants: clinical and radiographic results[J]. Clin Oral Implant Res, 2001, 12(3): 252-259.
[17] Weber HP, Crohin CC, Fiorellini JP.A 5-year prospective clinical and radiolographic study of non-submerged dental implant[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2000, 11(2): 144-153.
[18] Morris HF, Ochi S, Crum P, et al.AICRG, part I: a 6-year multicentered, multidisciplinary clinical study of a new and innovative implant design[J]. J Oral Implantol, 2004, 30(3): 125-133.
[19] Huang HL, Chang CH, Hsu JT, et al.Comparison of implant body designs and thread designs of dental implants: a 3-dimensional finite analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2007, 22(4): 551-562.
[20] Eckert SE, Choi YG, Sanchez AR, et al.Comparison of dental implant systems: quality of clinical evidence and prediction of 5-year survival[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2005, 20(3): 406-415.
[21] Jensen OT, Shulman LB, Block MS, et al.Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1998, 13(Suppl): 11-45.
[22] Huang HL, Fuh LJ, Hsu JT, et al.Effects of implant surface roughness and stiffness of grafted bone on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: a 3D numerical analysis[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2008, 35(4): 283-290.

不同种植体外形设计对上颌窦提升术后种植体周围应力分布的影响

Biochemical analysis of stress distribution of dental implants with different body shapes after maxillary sinus augmentation

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 6

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	卢雨桐, 史俊宇, 赖红昌. Astra锥形种植体在上颌窦穿牙槽嵴顶提升术中的短期效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2023, 32(3): 302-307.
[2]	甄子澄, 沈汉, 倪俊. 基于锥形束CT的无牙颌上颌骨倾斜种植设计测量分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2019, 28(3): 307-311.
[3]	陈瑛, 朱操云, 夏烨. 上颌窦侧壁开窗植骨种植术的护理配合[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2019, 28(2): 187-190.
[4]	何淞，陈周艳，杨四维，黄跃. 唇舌侧弓丝力学性能差异的三维有限元分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(6): 660-666.
[5]	杨炎忠，田小华，李小凤，龚正伟. 经牙槽嵴顶入路液压提升法提升上颌窦底黏膜并植骨同期种植的效果评价[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(6): 721-725.
[6]	郭雪华, 姜茜, 阮宏, 罗英, 余优成. DBBM骨替代材料在上颌窦外提升中的三维影像学研究[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2013, 22(4): 448-452.