Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지

THE THREE DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND DEFORMATION IN MANDIBLE ACCORDING TO THE POSITION OF PONTIC IN TWO IMPLANTS SUPPORTED THREE-UNIT FIXED PARTIAL DENTURE

두 개의 임플란트를 이용한 3본 고정성 국소의치에서 가공치 위치에 따른 하악골에서의 응력 분포 및 변형에 관한 삼차원 유한요소법적 연구

  • Kim, Dong-Su (Dept. of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Il-Kyu (Dept. of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Jang, Keum-Soo (Dept. of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Park, Tae-Hwan (Dept. of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Kyu-Nam (Dept. of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Son, Choong-Yul (Dept. of Naval Achi & Ocean Eng. Inha University)
  • 김동수 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 김일규 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 장금수 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 박태환 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 김규남 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 손충렬 (공과대학 선박해양공학과)
  • Published : 2008.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Excessive concentration of stress which is occurred in occlusion around the implant in case of the implant supported fixed partial denture has been known to be the main cause of the crestal bone destruction. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the stress analysis on supporting tissue to get higher success rates of implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of stress distribution and deformation in 3 different types of three-unit fixed partial denture sup-ported by two implants, using a three dimensional finite element analysis in a three dimensional model of a whole mandible. A mechanical model of an edentulous mandible was generated from 3D scan, assuming two implants were placed in the left premolars area. According to the position of pontic, the experiments groups were divided into three types. Type I had a pontic in the middle position between two implants, type II in the anterior posi-tion, and type III in the posterior position. A 100-N axial load was applied to sites such as the central fossa of anterior and posterior implant abutment, central fossa of pontic, the connector of pontic or the connector between two implants, the mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its four-masticatory muscular supporting system. The results obtained from this study were as follows; 1. The mandible deformed in a way that the condyles converged medially in all types under muscular actions. In comparison with types, the deformations in the type II and type III were greater by 2-2.5 times than in the type I regardless of the loading location. 2. The values of von Mises stresses in cortical and cancellous bone were relatively stable in all types, but slightly increased as the loading position was changed more posteriorly. 3. In comparison with type I, the values of von Mises stress in the implant increased by 73% in Type II and by 77% in Type III when the load was applied anterior and posterior respectively, but when the load was applied to the middle, the values were similar in all types. 4. When the load was applied to the centric fossa of pontic, the values of von Mises stress were nearly $30{\sim}35%$ higher in the type III than type I or II in the cortical and cancellous bone. Also, in the implant, the values of von Mises stress of the type II or III were $160{\sim}170%$ higher than in the type I. 5. When the load was applied to the centric fossa of implant abutment, the values of von Mises stress in the cortical and cancellous bone were relatively $20{\sim}25%$ higher in the type III than in the other types, but in the implant they were 40-45% higher in the type I or II than in the type III. According to the results of this study, musculature modeling is important to the finite element analysis for stress distribution and deformation as the muscular action causes stress concentration. And the type I model is the most stable from a view of biomechanics. Type II is also a clinically accept-able design when the implant is stiff sufficiently and mandibular deformation is considered. Considering the high values of von Mises stress in the cortical bone, type III is not thought as an useful design.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;16(suppl):1-132
  2. Skalak R: Aspects of biomechanical considerations. In: Br?nemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T(eds). Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago : Quintessence 1985;117-128
  3. Matsushita Y, Kithoh M, Mizuta K, et al:. Two-dimensional FEM analysis of hydroxyapatite implants diameter effects on stress distribution. J Oral Implantol 1990;16:6-11
  4. Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, et al: Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;436-440
  5. Bunski JB, Skalak R: "Biomechanics of osseointegration and dental prosthesis", osseointegration in oral rehabilitation, London : Quintessence publishing Co., 1993;133-156
  6. Weinberg LA: The biomechanics of force distribution in implantsupported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:19-31
  7. Sertgoz A, Guvener S: Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implantsupported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76;165 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90301-7
  8. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al: A 15 year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Surgery, 1981;10:387 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  9. Rangert B, Krogh PHJ, Ranger B. et al: Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:326
  10. Balshi TJ: An analysis and management of fractured implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:660
  11. Morimoto K, Kihara A, Takeshita F, et al: An experimental study on the tissue compatibility of the titanium bladevent implant coated with HAP-alumina in the semi-functional state. J Oral Implantol 1987;13:387-401
  12. Kohal RJ, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, et al: Three dimensional computerized stress analysis of commercially pure titanium and Yttrium-partially stabilized zirconia implants. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:189-94
  13. Borchers L, Reichart P: Three-dimensional stress distribution around a dental implant at different stages of interface development. J Dent Res 1983;62:155-159 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620021401
  14. Lavernia CJ, Cook SD, Weinstein AM, et al: An analysis of stress in dental implant system. J Biomech 1981;14:555-560 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(81)90005-1
  15. Rieger MR, Mayberry M. and Brose MO: Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:671-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90325-7
  16. Vocht JWD, Goel VR, Zeitler DL, et al: Development of a finite element model to simulate and study the biomechanics of the temporomandibular joint. 1999:1-9
  17. Inou N, Iioka Y, Fujiwara H, et al: Functional adaptation of mandibular bone. In: Hayashi K, Ishikawa II(eds). Computational Biomechanics. Tokyo: Springer-Verjag 1996;23-42
  18. Misch CE, Bidez MW: Implant-Protected Occlusion. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995;7:25
  19. Hoshaw SJ, Brunski JB, Cochran GV: Mechanical loading of Branemark implant affects interfacial bone remodeling and remodeling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:345-60
  20. Weinberg LA, Kruger B: Biomechanical considerations when combining tooth-supported and implant-supported prostheses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78:22-27 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90112-0
  21. Soltesz U, Siegele D: Principal characteristics of the stress distribution in the jaw caused by dental implants. In Biomechanics: Principles and Applications (eds R. Huiekes, D. Campen, & J. Wijn), Martinus-Nijhoff, The Netherlands 1982;439
  22. Rieger MR, Adams WK, Kinzel GL: A finite element surgery of eleven endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:457-465 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90238-8
  23. Meffert R: Implant theraphy. In: Nevins M, Becker W and Kornman KS et al: Proceeding of the World workshop in clinical periodontics, Chicago American Academy of periodontology 1989
  24. Wang TM, Len lJ, Wang HS et al: Effects of prosthesis Materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress Around Implants in poor-Quality : A numeric Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:231
  25. Worthington P, Lang BR, Bubenstein JE: Osseointegration in Dentistry, An overview .2nd. ed. Quintessence books, Chicago, berlin, Tokyo, Copenhagen, London, Paris, Milan, Borcelona, Istanbul, Sao Paulo, Newdelhi, Moscow, Prague, and Warsaw 2003;56
  26. Lum LB, Osier JF: Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: An analysis using statics. Part two: Axial loading. J Oral Implantol 1992;18:349-353
  27. Misch CE: Contemporary Implant dentistry 2nd ed. Mosby 1999
  28. Koeck B, Saunder G: Uber die elastishe Deformation der Unterkieferspange. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1978;33:254-261
  29. Picton DCA: Distortion of the jaws during biting. Arch Oral Biol 7:573-580 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(62)90063-8
  30. Muhlemann HR, Zander H: The mechanism of tooth mobility. J Periodont 1954;25:128-135 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1954.25.2.128
  31. Korioth TWP, Hannam AG: Deformation of the human mandible during simulated tooth clenching. J Dent Res 1994;73:56-66 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345940730010801
  32. Cruz M, Wassall T, Toledo EM, et al: Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of a cuneiform-geometry implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants. 2003;18:675-684
  33. Skalak R: Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-848 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X
  34. English G: The cortical A-P spread. Implant Soc J 1990;1:2-3
  35. Worthington P, Bolender G, Taylor T: The Swedish system of osseointegrated implants:problems and complications encountered during a four year trialperiod. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:77-84
  36. Sones A: Complications with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:581-585 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90084-X
  37. Akca K, Iplikcioglu H: Finite element stress analysis of the effect of short implant usage in place of cantilever extension in mandibular posterior edentulism. J Oral Rehabilitation 2002; 29:350-356 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00872.x
  38. Schwartzman B, Mito R, Caputo A, et al: Load transfer by multiple implants under various prosthetic devices. J Dent Res 1991;70:460
  39. White SN, Caputo AA. Anderkvist T: Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:493 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90189-9
  40. Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, et al: Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three dimensional Finite element stress analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:82
  41. Kunavisarut C, Lisa A, Brian R. et al: Finite element analysis on dental implant - supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002;11:30-40
  42. Wennstrom J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S. et al: Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:1077-1083 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00603.x
  43. Reilly DT, Burstein AH: The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomechanics 1975;8:393 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(75)90075-5