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

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2020.04.004

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

R782.1

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.

References

[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.