Biomechanical influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress distribution over internal hexagon short implant: 3-D finite element analysis with statistical test

Verri, Fellippo Ramos; Santiago, Joel Ferreira; Almeida, Daniel Augusto de Faria; Oliveira, Guilherme Bérgamo Brandão de; Batista, Victor Eduardo de Souza; Honório, Heitor Marques; Noritomi, Pedro Yoshito; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.021

Cited by 61 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two different versions of the C/I R have been described, depending on the apico-coronal placement of the fulcrum: 31 the anatomical C/I R, where the fulcrum of the lever arm is located at the implant shoulder; and the clinical C/I R, where the fulcrum lies within the bone crest. In the latter case, the length of the crown may include the part of implant that may not be completely embedded in the bone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CT-based dentulous mandibular alveolar ridge measurements as predictors of crown-to-implant ratio for short and extra short dental implants

Meggiorin

Ferrarese

Lupi

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose was to predict the crown-to-implant ratio variation in the edentulous posterior mandibles rehabilitated with short dental implants. Hence, vertical and horizontal dimensions of dentulous posterior mandibles in a sample of 18- to 25-year-olds were measured, and correlations of these dimensions with sex and site were investigated. Mandibular computed tomography scans from 100 subjects were considered. Vertical and horizontal bone and tooth measurements were taken at the sites of the second premolar (PM), and the mesial and distal roots of the first and second molars (M1m, M1d, M2m and M2d, respectively). A hypothetical crown-to-implant ratio (C/I R) was calculated assuming the insertion of short and extra short implants (5, 6 or 7 mm), at 1.5 mm from the inferior alveolar canal, maintaining the position of the existing occlusal plane. All vertical bone dimensions decreased from the PM to the M2d. Width measurements increased from the mesial (PM) to the distal sites (M1m, M1d, M2m and M2d). Males had significantly greater vertical and horizontal measurements than females at all sites. The mean C/I R was higher than 2 for all sizes of implant. The C/I R was lower for the second molar than for the second premolar, while it was similar for the first molar and the second premolar. Males had a higher C/I R than females. Computed tomography can be used to study the anatomical features of alveolar bone, and to predict some clinical aspects of prosthetic rehabilitation with implants, such as the crown-to-implant ratio in conditions of serious bone atrophy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CT-based dentulous mandibular alveolar ridge measurements as predictors of crown-to-implant ratio for short and extra short dental implants

Meggiorin

Ferrarese

Lupi

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies reported that the ratio crown-to-implant in short dental implants may lead to excessive occlusal and nonaxial loading which in turn may bring biological and technical complications [36][37][38][39], this relation has not been observed in this systematic review. However, these results should be view with caution since the information regarding the crown-to-implant ratio, the type of prosthesis and the use of splinting between crowns was scarce and could be considered a limitation of this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. Materials and methods Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone. Results Eight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD − 0.04 mm [− 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD − 0.10 mm [− 0.16; − 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups. Conclusions This systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. Clinical relevance The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.

show abstract

“…Maximum principal stress was used to analyze stress on bone tissue as recommended to analyze compression and traction patterns of friable materials [ 12 – 16 ]. The von Mises stress was used to analyze implants and its components as recommended to analyze ductile solid materials [ 14 , 15 ]. Both analyses have units in Mega Pascal (MPa).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three‐Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Anterior Single Implant‐Supported Prostheses with Different Bone Anchorages

Verri

Júnior

Almeida

et al. 2015

The Scientific World Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution of monocortical and bicortical implant placement of external hexagon connection in the anterior region of the maxilla by 3D finite element analysis (FEA). 3D models were simulated to represent a bone block of anterior region of the maxilla containing an implant (4.0 × 10.0 mm) and an implant-supported cemented metalloceramic crown of the central incisor. Different techniques were tested (monocortical, bicortical, and bicortical associated with nasal floor elevation). FEA was performed in FEMAP/NeiNastran software using loads of 178 N at 0°, 30°, and 60° in relation to implant long axis. The von Mises, maximum principal stress, and displacement maps were plotted for evaluation. Similar stress patterns were observed for all models. Oblique loads increased the stress concentration on fixation screws and in the cervical area of the implants and bone around them. Bicortical technique showed less movement tendency in the implant and its components. Cortical bone of apical region showed increase of stress concentration for bicortical techniques. Within the limitations of this study, oblique loading increased the stress concentrations for all techniques. Moreover, bicortical techniques showed the best biomechanical behavior compared with monocortical technique in the anterior maxillary area.

show abstract

Biomechanical influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress distribution over internal hexagon short implant: 3-D finite element analysis with statistical test

Cited by 61 publications

References 35 publications

CT-based dentulous mandibular alveolar ridge measurements as predictors of crown-to-implant ratio for short and extra short dental implants

CT-based dentulous mandibular alveolar ridge measurements as predictors of crown-to-implant ratio for short and extra short dental implants

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Three‐Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Anterior Single Implant‐Supported Prostheses with Different Bone Anchorages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About