단일치 임플랜트 지지 보철물에서 고정체와 지대주 나사 직경의 차이에 따른 삼차원 유한요소법적 응력 분석

THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT STRESS ANALYSIS OF SINGLE IMPLANT RESTORATION USING DIFFERENT FIXTURE AND ABUTMENT SCREW DIAMETERS

  • 권주홍 (원광대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 최민호 (원광대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 김유리 (원광대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 조혜원 (원광대학교 치과대학 보철학교실)
  • Kwon Joo-Hong (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Choi Min-Ho (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kim Yu-Lee (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Cho Hye-Won (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 발행 : 2005.02.01

초록

Statement of problem. As the effects of the various diameters of fixture and abutment screw on stress distribution was not yet examined, this study focused on the different design of single implant restoration using three dimensional finite element analysis. Purpose. This study was to compare five different fixture-abutment combinations for single implant supported restorations with different fixture and abutment screw diameters. Material of methods. The five kinds of finite element models were designed by 3 diameter fixtures ($\oslash$3.3, 3.75, 5.0 mm) with 3 different abutment screws $\oslash$1.5, 1.7, 2.0 mm). The crown for mandibular first molar was made using UCLA abutment according to Wheeler's anatomy. 244 N was applied at the central fossa with two different loading directions, vertically and obliquely (30$^{\circ}$) and at the buccal cusp vertically. Maximum von Mises stresses were recorded and compared in the supporting bone, crowns, fixtures, and abutment screws. Results. 1. The stresses in supporting bone and implant-abutment structure under oblique loading were greater than those under vertical or offset loading. The stresses under vertical loading were the least among 3 loading conditions regardless of the implant and abutment screw diameters. 2. The stresses in the narrow implants were greater than the wider implants. The narrow implant with narrow abutment screw showed highest stresses in the lingual crest, but the narrow implant with standard abutment screw showed highest stress in abutment screw. 3. The stresses of abutment screws were influenced by the diameter of fixtures and loading conditions. The wide implants showed least difference between two different abutment screw diameters. Conclusions. The wide implants showed lesser stresses than the narrow implants and affected least by the different abutment screw diameters. The narrow implants with standard abutment screw showed highest stresses in the lingual bony crest under oblique loading.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Haraldson T, Carlsson GE. Bite force and oral function in patients with osseointegrated oral implants. Scand J Dent Res 1977;85:200-209
  2. Binon P. Screw joints, components, and other intimate relationships. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:625-628
  3. Polizzi G, Fabbro S, Furri M, Squarzoni S, Herrmann I. Clinical application of narrow Branemark System implants for singletooth restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:496-503
  4. Jarvis WC. Biomechanical advantage of wide-diameter implants. Compendium 1997;18:687-694
  5. Langer B, Langer L, Herrmann I, Jorneus L. The wide fixture: A solution for special bone situations and a rescue for compromised implant Part 1. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:400-408
  6. Sullivan DY, Siddiqui A. Wide-diameter implant: Overcoming problems. Dent Today 1994;13:50-57
  7. Jemt T, Laney WR, Harris D, Henry PJ, Krogh PH, Polizzi G, et al. Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: A 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:29-35
  8. Cavazos E, Bell FA. Preventing loosening of implant abutment screws. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:566-569 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90464-3
  9. Sertgoz A, Guvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:165-169 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90301-7
  10. Rangert B, Krogh PH, van Rokel N. Bending overload and implant fracture : A retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:326-334
  11. Cook SD, Weintein AM, Klawittre JJ. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of a porous Co-Cr-Mo alloy dental implants. J Dent Res 1982;25-29 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(95)00119-0
  12. Hertel R, Kalk W. Influence of the dimensions of implant superstructure on peri-implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:18-24
  13. Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, Bidez MW. Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:436-440 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70030-2
  14. Graves SL, Jansen CE, Siddiqui AA, Beaty KD. Wide diameter implants: indications, considerations and preliminary results over a two-year period. Aust Prosthodont J 1994;8:31-37
  15. Kido H, Schulz EE, Kumar A, Lozada J, Saha S. Implant diameter and bone density: effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:163-169
  16. Choi YH. A study on the finite element analysis of stress induced by different diameters and length of dental implant. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:629
  17. Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Sennerby L, Bergstrom C, Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:173-178
  18. Ibbott CG, Kovach R, Carlson-Mann LD. Indications for small diameter screw-type implants. J Can Dent Assoc 1996;62:795-797
  19. Andersson B, Odman P, Boss A, Jorneus L. Mechanical testing of superstructures on the CeraOne abutment in the Branemark system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:665-672
  20. Tripodakis A, Strub J, Kappert H, Witkowski S. Srength and mode of failure of single implant all-ceramic abutment restorations under static load. Int J Prosthodont 1995;:8:265-272
  21. Sakaguchi R, Borgersen E. Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:295-302
  22. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: An 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-526
  23. Phillips RW. Skinner's science of dental materials, 9th ed, Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1991:15
  24. Isa ZM, Hobkirk JA. The effects of superstructure fit and loading on individual implant units: Part 2. The effects of loading a superstructure with varying degrees of fit. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1996;4:11-14