The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

FINITE ELEMENT STRESS ANALYSIS OF IMPLANT PROSTHESIS ACCORDING TO CONNECTION TYPES OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT

임플랜트-지대주의 연결방법에 따른 임플랜트 보철의 유한요소 응력분석

  • Hur Jin-Kyung (Dept. of Prosthodontics, and Oral Biology Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kay Kee-Sung (Dept. of Prosthodontics, and Oral Biology Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Chung Chae-Heon (Dept. of Prosthodontics, and Oral Biology Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 허진경 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강생물학연구소) ;
  • 계기성 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강생물학연구소) ;
  • 정재헌 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강생물학연구소)
  • Published : 2005.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : This study was to assess the loading distributing characteristics of implant systems with internal connection or external connection under vertical and inclined loading using finite element analysis. Materials and methods : Two finite element models were designed according to type of internal connection or external connection The crown for mandibular first molar was made using cemented 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 centric cusp tip in a 15$^{\circ}$ inward inclined direction (loading condition B), or 200N at the centric cusp tip in a 30$^{\circ}$ outward inclined direction (loading condition C) respectively. Von Mises stresses were recorded and compared in the supporting bone, fixture, abutment and abutment screw. Results : 1. In comparison with the whole stress or the model 1 and model 2, the stress pattern was shown through th contact of the abutment and the implant fixture in the model 1, while the stress pattern was shown through the abutment screw mainly in the model 2. 2. Without regard to the loading condition, greater stress was taken at the cortical bone, and lower stress was taken at the cancellous bone. The stress taken at the cortical bone was greater at the model 1 than at the model 2, but the stress taken at the cortical bone was much less than the stress taken at the abutment, the implant fixture, and the abutment screw in case of both model 1 and model 2. 3. Without regard to the loading condition, the stress pattern of the abutment was greater at the model 1 than at the model 2. 4. In comparison with the stress distribution of model 1 and model 2, the maximum stress was taken at the abutment in the model 1. while the maximum stress was taken at the abutment screw in the model 2. 5. The magnitude of the maximum stress taken at the supporting bone, the implant fixture, the abutment, and the abutment screw was greater in the order of loading condition A, B and C. Conclusion : The stress distribution pattern of the internal connection system was mostly distributed widely to the lower part along the inner surface of the implant fixture contacting the abutment core through its contact portion because of the intimate contact of the abutment and the implant fixture and so the less stress was taken at the abutment screw, while the abutment screw can be the weakest portion clinically because the greater stress was taken at the abutment screw in case of the external connection system, and therefore the further clinical study about this problem is needed.

Keywords

References

  1. Balfour A, O' Brien GR. Comparative study of anti rotational single tooth abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1995:73:36-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80270-7
  2. 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
  3. Matsushita Y, Kithoh M, Mizuta K, Ikeda H, Suetsugu T. Two-dimentional FEM analysis of hydroxyapatite implants: diameter effects on stress distribution. J Oral ImplantoI1990:16:6-11
  4. Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different screw materials and surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001 :86:24-32 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.116230
  5. Sakaguchi RL, Borgersen SE. Nonlinear finite element contact analysis of preload dental implant components. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implant 1993:655-661
  6. Brunski JE, Hipp JE. In the forces on endosteal implant: A measurement system and biomechanical consideration. J Prosthet Dent 1984:51:82
  7. Sutter F, Webber HP, Sorensen J, Belser U. The new restorative concept of the ITI dental implant system: design and engineering. Int J Perodont Rest Dent 1993: 13 :409-431
  8. Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single end osseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74:51-55 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80229-X
  9. Jemt T et al. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement. A 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991:6:29-36
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Norton MR. In vitro evaluation of the strength of the conical implant-to-abutment joint in two commercially available implant systems. J Prosthet Dent 2000:83:567-571 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70016-3
  14. Sutter F. et al. The new concept of ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants : Part 1. Engineering and design. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implant 1988;3:161-172
  15. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Borjesson G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 1994:9: 179-183
  16. Henry PJ. Laney WR, Jemt T. et al. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: A prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11 : 450-455
  17. Krennmair G. Schmidinger S. Waldenberger O. Single-tooth replacement with frialit-2 system: A retrospective clinical analysis of 146 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implanst 2002: 17:78-85
  18. Im TW. Cho IH, Lim JH, Lim HS. Fatigue strength of dental implants with different types of connection between fixture and abutment cylinder. J Korean Acad Stomatog. Function & Occlu. 2002:18:1-19
  19. Akca K, Cehreli MC, lplikcioglu 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
  20. 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
  21. Kim NH. Chung CH. Son MK, Back DH. A study on the fit of the implant-abutmentscrew interface. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2003:41: 503-518
  22. 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
  23. Morimoto K. Kihara A. Takeshita F. Suetsugu T. 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
  24. Haraldson T. Zarb GA. A 10-year follow-up study of the masticatory system after treatment with osseointegrated implant bridges. Stand J Dent Rec 1988:96:243-252
  25. Lum LB. Osier JF. Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: An analysis using statics. Part one: Horizontal loading. J Oral Implantol 1992:18:343-348
  26. 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
  27. Kirsch A. Neuendorff G. Ackermann KL, Nagel R, Durr W. Camlog connection: Requirements for a reliable implant prosthetic treament concept: tooth for tooth restoration. Quintessenz 1999: 50: 1-18
  28. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989:4:241-247
  29. 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
  30. Lum LB. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 1991: 17: 126-131
  31. Weinberg LA. Force distribution in splinted anterior teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral PathoI1957:10:484-494,1957 https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(57)90007-5
  32. 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
  33. Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993:8:19-31
  34. Clelland NL, Lee JK, Bimbenet OC, 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
  35. Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: Biomechanical study of flat top versus conical. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002:2:33
  36. 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)70009-X
  37. Jansen VK, Conards G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997: 12: 527-540
  38. Jorneus L, Jemt T, Carlsson L. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992: 7: 353-359
  39. Sones AD. Complication with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989: 62:581-585 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90084-X
  40. McGlumphy EA, Mendel DA, Holloway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clinics of North America 1998:42: 71-89
  41. Cehreli MC, Akca K. Iplikcioglu H. Sahin S. Dynamic fatigue resistance of implantabutment junction in an internally notched morse-taper oral implant: influence of abutment design. Clin Oral Imp Res 2004: 15:459-463 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01023.x
  42. Binon PP. Evaluation of machining accuracy and consistency of selected implants, standard abutments. and laboratory analogs. Int J Prosthodont 1995:8:162-178
  43. Binon PP. The evolution and evaluation of two interference-fit implant interfaces. Postgraduate Dent 1996: 3: 3-13
  44. Akca K. Iplikcioglu H. Evaluation of the effect of the residual bone angulation on implant-supported fixed prosthesis in mandibular posterior edentulism. Part II : 3-D finite element stress analysis. Implant Dent 2001: 10: 239-245