Comparative study of stress characteristics in surrounding bone during insertion of dental implants of three different thread designs: A three‐dimensional dynamic finite element study

Udomsawat, Chaiwat; Rungsiyakull, Pimduen; Rungsiyakull, Chaiy; Khongkhunthian, Pathawee

doi:10.1002/cre2.152

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these limitations, a condition of 100% osseointegration was assumed, cancellous and cortical bone were regarded as isotropic linearly elastic materials, and the loads selected were static and not time-dependent. However, similar studies based on stress analysis using FEA have yielded an approximate idea of the stress distribution and overloading risk in peri-implant tissues [11,12,[27][28][29][30], and have been helpful in the anticipation of mechanical testing and clinical results [31][32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We resubmit the manuscript entitled "FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NARROW DENTAL IMPLANTS" (DENTA-19-00040) after addressing your request of a major revision. We have addressed all the comments of the reviewers, which helped us to improve the manuscript. Below you will find our answers to the comments. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the final manuscript. Figures 3 and 4 have been modified as well to comply with comment 7.Comment 1: Results. The authors described that "The reason for distinguishing between minimum and maximum principal stress is to see the difference between compressive and tensile stress patterns respectively." However, the positive values of maximum/minimum principal stress mean tensile stress. The negative values of maximum/minimum principal stress mean compressive stress. Revise all related points. Answer 1: We thank you for your constructive recommendations to improve the quality of our work. Indeed, the sentence was not strictly correct since it is true that positive values of principal stress mean tension and negative ones mean compression. In the new version of the manuscript we have solved this ambiguity with a more precise sentence: "The reason for distinguishing between minimum and maximum principal stress is to identify the areas where overloading occurs due to either compressive or tensile stress, respectively, according to the maximum normal stress criterion defined above". In fact, based on this stress criterion used for brittle materials, overloading of bone occurs when the maximum principal stress exceeds its tensile strength or when the minimum principal stress exceeds its compressive strength.Comment 2: Discussion. References in the Discussion section is not enough. Ex. The last sentence in the first paragraph should be referred similar studies.Answer 2: Thanks for this observation. In the new manuscript, we have included more references supporting our discussion. Comment 3: Some results such as "3.0mm =2.20 mm³" were described in the Discussion section. These results must be moved to the Results section. Make sure and revise all related points. Answer 3: We included those data in the Discussion section since they give rise to a particular analysis from the general data provided in the Figure 3 (Results section). In any case, it is true they fit better in the Results section. We have moved this and other numerical data to the Results section while keeping their interpretation in the Discussion section. Comment 4: Also, what's the meaning of OV? Define it.Answer 4: Overloading is a major trigger for the damage and resorption of peri-implant bone. OV means overloaded volume and is related to the stress criterion we have considered to determine the areas under overloading in bone, in accordance with similar studies. It should be noted that bone can be damaged by tensile or compressive stress.Response to Reviewers (without Author Details) Answer 5: Thanks for this observation. This has been solved in the new version of the manuscript.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Threads contribute to primary stability by increasing the initial contact with the underlying bone [ 26 ]. Self-tapping implants are usually designed to avoid the use of thread-cutting techniques to prepare the implant site, which is replaced by the action of cutting edges integrated into the lower apical part of the implant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self-tapping implants are usually designed to avoid the use of thread-cutting techniques to prepare the implant site, which is replaced by the action of cutting edges integrated into the lower apical part of the implant. Threads, however, differ in the way they transmit loads to adjacent bone [ 26 ]. V-shaped threads and implants with reverse buttress-threaded implants showed to transmit axial force through a combination of compressive, tensile, and shear forces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between Implant Geometry and Primary Stability in Different Bony Defects and Variant Bone Densities: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effects of implant designs on primary stability in different bone densities and bony defects. Methods: Five implant types (tapered-tissue-level, tissue-level, zirconia-tissue-level, bone-level, and BLX implants) were used in this assessment. The implants were inserted into four different artificial bone blocks representing varying bone-density groups: D1, D2, D3, and D4. Aside from the control group, three different types of defects were prepared. Using resonance frequency analysis and torque-in and -out values, the primary stability of each implant was evaluated. Results: With an increased defect size, all implant types presented reduced implant stability values measured by the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values. Loss of stability was the most pronounced around circular defects. Zirconia and bone-level implants showed the highest ISQ values, whereas tissue level titanium implants presented the lowest stability parameters. The implant insertion without any thread cut led to a small improvement in primary implant stability in all bone densities. Conclusions: Compared with implants with no peri-implant defects, the three-wall and one-wall defect usually did not provide significant loss of primary stability. A significant loss of stability should be expected when inserting implants into circular defects. Implants with a more aggressive thread distance could increase primary stability.

show abstract

“…It is the macroscopic implant design that has significance to influence stress distribution on the adjacent bone. [ 10 11 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical evaluation of stress distribution in subcrestal placed platform-switched short dental implants in D4 bone: In vitro finite-element model study

Sesha

Sunduram²,

Abdelmagyd

2020

J Pharm Bioall Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A BSTRACT The present study was carried out to assess stress distribution in the maxillary posterior bone region (D4 bone) with the help of a short platform switched subcrestal dental implants using the FEM model. Missing teeth surfaces related to the maxillary posterior region were stimulated. The bone model had a cancellous core of (0.5 mm) which represents D4 bone. A 7.5x4.6 mm screw type implant system with 3.5 platform switch abutment was selected. ANSYS WORKBENCH was used to model all the finite element structures. Force of 100 N was tested and adapted at an angle of 0º, 15º, 30º on the tooth model. Overall results from the current study showed that a high amount of stress was seen in cortical than in relation to cancellous bone. Stress values reduced from equicrestal to subcrestal (2 mm) placement of dental implants irrespective of angulation of load from 0o to 30o in both types of bone. However higher stress values were seen when force was applied in an oblique direction (30o) in comparison to a vertical load (0o). Least amount of stress was noticed when platform switched implants were placed 0.5 mm subcrestatlly irrespective of angulations of a load. Platform switched short subcrestal implants reduced the stress in the D4 cortical bone than in contrary equicrestal implant placement. This results in the preservation of marginal bone leading to implant success.

show abstract

Comparative study of stress characteristics in surrounding bone during insertion of dental implants of three different thread designs: A three‐dimensional dynamic finite element study

Cited by 27 publications

References 29 publications

Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants

Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants

Relationship between Implant Geometry and Primary Stability in Different Bony Defects and Variant Bone Densities: An In Vitro Study

Biomechanical evaluation of stress distribution in subcrestal placed platform-switched short dental implants in D4 bone: In vitro finite-element model study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About