STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Load transfer mechanisms and possible failure of osseointegrated implants are affected by implant shape, geometrical and mechanical properties of the site of placement, as well as crestal bone resorption. Suitable estimation of such effects allows for correct design of implant features. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution and to analyze overload risk of clinically evidenced crestal bone loss at the implant neck in mandibular and maxillary molar periimplant regions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stress-based performances of 5 commercially available implants (2 ITI, 2 Nobel Biocare, and 1 Ankylos implant; diameters of 3.3 mm to 4.5 mm, bone-implant interface lengths of 7.5 mm to 12 mm) were analyzed by linearly elastic 3-dimensional finite element simulations, under a static load (lateral component: 100 N; vertical intrusive component: 250 N). Numerical models of maxillary and mandibular molar bone segments were generated from computed tomography images, and local stress measures were introduced to allow for the assessment of bone overload risk. Different crestal bone geometries were also modelled. Type II bone quality was approximated, and complete osseous integration was assumed. RESULTS: Maximum stress areas were numerically located at the implant neck, and possible overloading could occur in compression in compact bone (due to lateral components of the occlusal load) and in tension at the interface between cortical and trabecular bone (due to vertical intrusive loading components). Stress values and concentration areas decreased for cortical bone when implant diameter increased, whereas more effective stress distributions for cancellous bone were experienced with increasing implant length. For implants with comparable diameter and length, compressive stress values at cortical bone were reduced when low crestal bone loss was considered. Finally, dissimilar stress-based performances were exhibited for mandibular and maxillary placements, resulting in higher compressive stress in maxillary situations. CONCLUSIONS: Implant designs, crestal bone geometry, and site of placement affect load transmission mechanisms. Due to the low crestal bone resorption documented by clinical evidence, the Ankylos implant based on the platform switching concept and subcrestal positioning demonstrated better stress-based performance and lower risk of bone overload than the other implant systems evaluated.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Load transfer mechanisms and possible failure of osseointegrated implants are affected by implant shape, geometrical and mechanical properties of the site of placement, as well as crestal bone resorption. Suitable estimation of such effects allows for correct design of implant features. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution and to analyze overload risk of clinically evidenced crestal bone loss at the implant neck in mandibular and maxillary molar periimplant regions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stress-based performances of 5 commercially available implants (2 ITI, 2 Nobel Biocare, and 1 Ankylos implant; diameters of 3.3 mm to 4.5 mm, bone-implant interface lengths of 7.5 mm to 12 mm) were analyzed by linearly elastic 3-dimensional finite element simulations, under a static load (lateral component: 100 N; vertical intrusive component: 250 N). Numerical models of maxillary and mandibular molar bone segments were generated from computed tomography images, and local stress measures were introduced to allow for the assessment of bone overload risk. Different crestal bone geometries were also modelled. Type II bone quality was approximated, and complete osseous integration was assumed. RESULTS: Maximum stress areas were numerically located at the implant neck, and possible overloading could occur in compression in compact bone (due to lateral components of the occlusal load) and in tension at the interface between cortical and trabecular bone (due to vertical intrusive loading components). Stress values and concentration areas decreased for cortical bone when implant diameter increased, whereas more effective stress distributions for cancellous bone were experienced with increasing implant length. For implants with comparable diameter and length, compressive stress values at cortical bone were reduced when low crestal bone loss was considered. Finally, dissimilar stress-based performances were exhibited for mandibular and maxillary placements, resulting in higher compressive stress in maxillary situations. CONCLUSIONS: Implant designs, crestal bone geometry, and site of placement affect load transmission mechanisms. Due to the low crestal bone resorption documented by clinical evidence, the Ankylos implant based on the platform switching concept and subcrestal positioning demonstrated better stress-based performance and lower risk of bone overload than the other implant systems evaluated.