Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지

Finite Element Stress Analysis of Implant Prosthesis of Internal Connection System According to Position and Direction of Load

임플랜트-지대주의 내측연결 시스템에서 하중의 위치 및 경사에 따른 임플랜트 보철의 유한요소 응력분석

  • Jang, Jong-Seok (Dept of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Jeong, Yong-Tae (Dept of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Chung, Chae-Heon (Dept of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 장종석 (조선대학교 치과대학 보철학 교실) ;
  • 정용태 (조선대학교 치과대학 보철학 교실) ;
  • 정재헌 (조선대학교 치과대학 보철학 교실)
  • Published : 2005.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the loading distributing characteristics of implant prosthesis of internal connection system(ITI system) according to position and direction of load, under vertical and inclined loading using finite element analysis (FEA). The finite element model of a synOcta implant and a solid abutment with $8^{\circ}$ internal conical joint used by the ITI implant was constructed. The gold crown for mandibular first molar was made on solid abutment. Each three-dimensional finite element model was created with the physical properties of the implant and surrounding bone. This study simulated loads of 200N at the central fossa in a vertical direction (loading condition A), 200N at the outside point of the central fossa with resin filling into screw hole in a vertical direction (loading condition B), 200N at the centric cusp in a $15^{\circ}$ inward oblique direction (loading condition C), 200N at the in a $30^{\circ}$ inward oblique direction (loading condition D) or 200N at the centric cusp in a $30^{\circ}$ outward oblique direction (loading condition E) individually. Von Mises stresses were recorded and compared in the supporting bone, fixture, and abutment. The following results have been made based on this study: 1. Stresses were concentrated mainly at the ridge crest around implant under both vertical and oblique loading but stresses in the cancellous bone were low under both vertical and oblique loading. 2. Bending moments resulting from non-axial loading of dental implants caused stress concentrations on cortical bone. The magnitude of the stress was greater with the oblique loading than with the vertical loading. 3. An offset of the vertical occlusal force in the buccolingual direction relative to the implant axis gave rise to increased bending of the implant. So, the relative positions of the resultant line of force from occlusal contact and the center of rotation seems to be more important. 4. In this internal conical joint, vertical and oblique loads were resisted mainly by the implant-abutment joint at the screw level and by the implant collar. Conclusively, It seems to be more important that how long the distance is from center of rotation of the implant itself to the resultant line of force from occlusal contact (leverage). In a morse taper implant, vertical and oblique loads are resisted mainly by the implant-abutment joint at the screw level and by the implant collar. This type of implant-abutment connection can also distribute forces deeper within the implant and shield the retention screw from excessive loading. Lateral forces are transmitted directly to the walls of the implant and the implant abutment mating bevels, providing greater resistance to interface opening.

Keywords

References

  1. Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;80:184-192
  2. Jemt T et al. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement. A l-year report from a multicenter prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:29-36
  3. Levine RA, et al. A multicenter retrospective analysis of ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: Preliminary results at six or more months of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants 1997; 12: 237-242
  4. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint interface in implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:290-298 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080407.x
  5. Norton MR. Assessment of cold welding properties of internal conical interface two commercially available implant system. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81:159-166 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70243-X
  6. Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant- supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8:19-31
  7. Rangert B, Enouard F, Amoux JP, Sarment DP. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12:360-370
  8. Rieger MR, Mayberry MS, Brose MO. Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990:63:671-6769 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90254-A
  9. Chung KM, Chung CH, Jeong SM. Finite element analysis of implant prostheis according to platform width of fixture, J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2003; 41:674-688
  10. Kim NH, Chung CH, Son MK, Back DH. A study on the fit of the implant-abutment-screw interface. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2003;41:503-518
  11. Haraldson T, Zarb GA. A 10-year follow-up study of the masticatory system after treatment with osseointegrated implant bridges. Scand J Dent Rec 1988;96:243-252
  12. Lum LB, Osier J.F. Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: An analysis using statics. Part one: Horizontal loading. J Oral Implantol 1992;18:343-348
  13. Holmes DC, Grigsby WR, Goel VK, Keller JC., Comparison of stress transmission in the IMZ implant system with polyoxymethylene or titanium intramobile element: A finite element stress analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7:450-458
  14. Akca, K., Cehreli, M.C & Iplikcioglu, H. Evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of the implant abutment complex of a reduced diameter morse taper implant: a nonlinear finite element stress analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2003;14: 444- 455 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00828.x
  15. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments, and laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:162-178
  16. Rangert B, Krogh PHJ, Langer B, van Roekel NB. Bending overload and implant fracture: A retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10:326-334
  17. Krenmnair G. Schmidinger S, Waldenberger O. Single-tooth replacement with frialit-2 system: A retrospective clinical analysis of 146 implants. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implanst 2002; 17:78-85
  18. Lum LB. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J. Oral Implantol 1991; 17:126-131
  19. Weinberg LA Force distribution in splinted anterior teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1957; 10:484-494 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(57)90007-5
  20. Weinberg LA Force distribution in splinted posterior teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1957; 10:1268-1276 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-4220(57)80025-5
  21. Borchers, L, Reichart, P. Three-dimensional stress distribution around a dental implant at different stages of interface development. J. Dent Rec 1983;62: 155-159 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620021401
  22. Clelland NL, Lee JK, Bimbenet, O.C., Gilat, A., Use of an axisymmetric finite element method to compare maxillary bone variables for a loaded implant. J Prosthodont 1993; 2:183-189 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1993.tb00405.x
  23. 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
  24. Bae, SJ, Chung, CH, Jeong, SM. Finite element anlysis of implant prosthesis according to position and direction of load. J Korean Acd Stomto Func Ocd 2003; 19:257-268
  25. Merz BR, Hunenbarts, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant abutment connection : an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. In J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-526
  26. Mollersten L, Lockowandt P, Linden LA Comparison of strength and failure mode of seven implant systems: an in vitro test. J prosthet Dent 1997; 78:582-591 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70079-9