Biomechanical effects of double or wide implants for single molar replacement in the posterior mandibular region

Sato, Yuuji; Shindoi, N.; Hosokawa, Ryuji; Tsuga, Kazuhiro; Akagawa, Yasumasa

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00598.x

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hobo et al [38] stated that while implants were resistant to vertical pressure, horizontal pressure (bending movements) generated torque in the implants and had more harmful effects; therefore, it would be wise to limit the occlusal contact of the superstructure to vertical pressure and avoid horizontal pressure as much as possible. This was also consistent with reports that lateral loading generated more stress than vertical loading, as is also found in Sato et al’s report using a geometric analysis [39], and supports the existing clinical concept that a lateral force applied to an implant greatly increases the stress in the surrounding bone.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

A biomechanical investigation of mandibular molar implants: reproducibility and validity of a finite element analysis model

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThree-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) is effective in analyzing stress distributions around dental implants. However, FEA of living tissue involves many conditions, and the structures and behaviors are complex; thus, it is difficult to ensure the validity of the results. To verify reproducibility and validity, we embedded implants in experimental models and constructed FEA models; implant displacements were compared under various loading conditions.MethodsImplants were embedded in the molar regions of artificial mandibles to fabricate three experimental models. A titanium superstructure was fabricated and three loading points (buccal, central, and lingual) were placed on a first molar. A vertical load of 100 N was applied to each loading point and implant displacements were measured. Next, the experimental models were scanned on micro-computed tomography (CT) and three-dimensional FEA software was used to construct two model types. A model where a contact condition was assumed for the implant and artificial mandible (a contact model) was constructed, as was a model where a fixation condition was assumed (a fixation model). The FEA models were analyzed under similar conditions as the experimental models; implant displacements under loading conditions were compared between the experimental and FEA models. Reproducibility of the models was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV), and validity was assessed using a correlation coefficient.ResultsThe CV of implant displacement was 5% to 10% in the experimental and FEA models under loading conditions. Absolute values of implant displacement under loading were smaller in FEA models than the experimental model, but the displacement tendency at each loading site was similar. The correlation coefficient between the experimental and contact models for implant displacement under loading was 0.925 (p < 0.01). The CVs of equivalent stress values in the FEA models were 0.52% to 45.99%.ConclusionsThree-dimensional FEA models were reflective of experimental model displacements and produced highly valid results. Three-dimensional FEA is effective for investigating the behavioral tendencies of implants under loading conditions. However, the validity of the absolute values was low and the reproducibility of the equivalent stresses was inferior; thus, the results should be interpreted with caution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

A biomechanical investigation of mandibular molar implants: reproducibility and validity of a finite element analysis model

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the last decade, the use of wide‐diameter implants (WDIs; diameter >3.75 mm) has increased, especially in the posterior jaw, because it is generally accepted that WDIs improve the ability of posterior implants to tolerate the occlusal forces, create a wider base for proper prosthesis, and avoid the placement of two standard‐size implants (SSIs) (3.75 mm) at one site to obtain a double‐root prosthetic tooth 1‐14 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wide‐Diameter Implants: Analysis of Clinical Outcome of 304 Fixtures

Degidi

Piattelli

Iezzi

2007

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the last decade, the use of wide-diameter implants (WDIs; diameter >3.75 mm) has increased. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in recent literature, there are few reports on this topic. Thus, we planned a retrospective study on a large series of WDIs to evaluate the clinical outcome.Methods: From October of 1996 to December of 2004, 205 patients were operated on, and 304 WDIs were inserted. The mean postloading follow-up was 30 months. Implant diameter and length ranged from 5.0 to 6.5 mm and from 8.0 to 15 mm, respectively. Because only five of 304 implants were lost (i.e., a survival rate of 98.4%) and no statistical differences were detected among the studied variables, no or reduced crestal bone resorption (CBR) was considered an indicator of success to evaluate the effect of several host-, surgery-, and implantrelated factors. A general linear model (GLM) was performed to detect variables that were associated statistically with CBR.Results: Only five of 304 WDIs were lost, and no differences were detected among the studied variables. On the contrary, the GLM showed that distal teeth (i.e., premolars and molars), small implant diameter (i.e., 5.0 and 5.5 mm), and short implant length (i.e., <13 mm) correlated with a statistically significant lower CBR.Conclusion: The use of WDIs is a viable treatment option, and it may provide benefits in posterior regions for long-term maintenance of various implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations. J Periodontol 2007;78:52-58.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, data suggest that single implants can be a satisfactory choice for posterior single‐tooth restorations with a high cumulative survival rate 9‐12 . The biomechanical advantage of two implants for single molar replacement is questionable when the occlusal force is loaded at the occlusal surface near the contact point 13 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%