OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a model that accurately represents the interface between bone and basal implants throughout the healing process. STUDY DESIGN: The model was applied to the biological scenario of changing load distribution in a basal implant system over time. We did this through finite element analysis (FEA, or finite element method [FEM]), using multiple models with changing bone-implant contact definitions, which reflected the dynamic nature of the interface throughout the bony healing process. RESULTS: In the simple models, peak von Mises stresses decreased as the bone-implant-contact definition was changed from extremely soft contact (i.e., immature bone during early loading) to hard contact (i.e., mature bone). In upgraded models, which more closely approximate the biological scenario with basal dental implant, peak von Mises stresses decreased at the implant interface; however, they increased at the bone interface as a harder contact definition was modeled. Further, we found a shift in peak stress location within the implants during different contact definitions (i.e., different stages of bony healing). In the case of hard contact, the peak stress occurs above the contact surface, whereas in soft contact, the stress peak occurs in the upper part of the contact area between bone and the vertical shaft of the implant. Only in the extreme soft contact definitions were the peak stresses found near the base plate of the implant. CONCLUSION: Future FEM studies evaluating the functional role of dental implants should consider a similar model that takes into account bone tissue adaptations over time.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a model that accurately represents the interface between bone and basal implants throughout the healing process. STUDY DESIGN: The model was applied to the biological scenario of changing load distribution in a basal implant system over time. We did this through finite element analysis (FEA, or finite element method [FEM]), using multiple models with changing bone-implant contact definitions, which reflected the dynamic nature of the interface throughout the bony healing process. RESULTS: In the simple models, peak von Mises stresses decreased as the bone-implant-contact definition was changed from extremely soft contact (i.e., immature bone during early loading) to hard contact (i.e., mature bone). In upgraded models, which more closely approximate the biological scenario with basal dental implant, peak von Mises stresses decreased at the implant interface; however, they increased at the bone interface as a harder contact definition was modeled. Further, we found a shift in peak stress location within the implants during different contact definitions (i.e., different stages of bony healing). In the case of hard contact, the peak stress occurs above the contact surface, whereas in soft contact, the stress peak occurs in the upper part of the contact area between bone and the vertical shaft of the implant. Only in the extreme soft contact definitions were the peak stresses found near the base plate of the implant. CONCLUSION: Future FEM studies evaluating the functional role of dental implants should consider a similar model that takes into account bone tissue adaptations over time.