Ning Kang1, Yan-Yun Wu1, Ping Gong1, Li Yue2, Guo-Min Ou3. 1. Department of Implantology, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China. 2. Department of Implantology, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China. Electronic address: 173144551@qq.com. 3. Department of Implantology, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China. Electronic address: guominou66@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the biomechanics of short dental implants. STUDY DESIGN: Three-dimensional finite element analysis was used to simulate stress distribution of 8-mm implants with 6 different diameters in I to IV types of bone densities; meanwhile, axial and oblique loads were applied in this study. RESULTS: It was found that the maximum Von-Mises stress varied significantly when the diameter was within 3.3 mm and 5 mm, whereas the change of peak stress was not obvious when the diameter was within 5.5 mm to 7.1 mm. The peak stress on the implant-bone interface increased with the reduction of bone density. The stress in types I and II had similar distribution and the same was true for types III and IV. CONCLUSIONS: These results revealed that implants with larger diameter (<5.5 mm) and bone quality enhancement may be preferable to get better clinical effects. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm this.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the biomechanics of short dental implants. STUDY DESIGN: Three-dimensional finite element analysis was used to simulate stress distribution of 8-mm implants with 6 different diameters in I to IV types of bone densities; meanwhile, axial and oblique loads were applied in this study. RESULTS: It was found that the maximum Von-Mises stress varied significantly when the diameter was within 3.3 mm and 5 mm, whereas the change of peak stress was not obvious when the diameter was within 5.5 mm to 7.1 mm. The peak stress on the implant-bone interface increased with the reduction of bone density. The stress in types I and II had similar distribution and the same was true for types III and IV. CONCLUSIONS: These results revealed that implants with larger diameter (<5.5 mm) and bone quality enhancement may be preferable to get better clinical effects. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm this.