DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of bone loss pattern on stress distribution in bone and implant: 3D-FEA study

주변 골흡수 양상에 따른 임플란트와 골의 응력분산에 관한 유한요소 분석

  • Lee, Jong-Hyuk (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Bong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yang, Jae-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 이종혁 (단국대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 김성훈 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이재봉 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 한중석 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 양재호 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2010.01.12
  • Accepted : 2010.04.05
  • Published : 2010.04.30

Abstract

Purpose: This 3D-FEA study was performed to investigate the influence of marginal bone loss pattern around the implant to the stress distribution. Material and methods: From the right second premolar to the right second molar of the mandible was modeled according to the CT data of a dentate patient. Teeth were removed and an implant ($\Phi\;4.0{\times}10.0mm$) was placed in the first molar area. Twelve bone models were created; Studied bone loss conditions were horizontal bone loss and vertical bone loss, assumed bone loss patterns during biologic width formation, and pathologic vertical bone loss with or without cortification. Axial, buccolingual, and oblique force was applied independently to the center of the implant crown. The Maximum von Mises stress value and stress contour was observed and von Mises stresses at the measuring points were recorded. Results: The stress distribution patterns were similar in the non-resorption and horizontal resorption models, but differed from those in the vertical resorption models. Models assuming biologic width formation showed altered stress distribution, and weak bone to implant at the implant neck area seams accelerates stress generation. In case of vertical bone resorption, contact of cortical bone to the implant may positively affect the stress distribution.

연구목적: 본 연구에서는 임플란트 주변 골흡수 양상의 차이가 임플란트와 주변골의 응력 분산에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위해 수평 골흡수와 임플란트 주변 수직 골흡수에 있어서 주변골의 응력분산, 생물학적 폭경의 형성과 응력분산의 변화 관계 및 병적인 골흡수시의 주변골 응력분포를 유한요소 분석법을 사용하여 비교하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법:우측 제1 소구치 전방에서 제2 대구치 후방까지의 하악골 모형에서 자연치를 제거하고 직경 4.0 mm, 길이 10.0 mm의 나사형 임플란트를 제1 대구치 부위에 식립하였다. 수평 수직 골흡수의 차이를 보기 위하여 골흡수가 나타나지 않은 형태를 대조군 (I)으로 하여, 1.5 mm 수평 골흡수 (H1.5), 3.0 mm 수평 골흡수 (H3.0) 모형과 이에 상응하는 수직 골흡수 모형 (VW1.5; 1.5 mm, VW3.0; 3.0 mm)을 설계하였고, 생물학적 폭경의 형성과 응력 변화를 관찰하기 위해 생물학적 폭경이 형성되는 과정을 가정한 모형(B0; 피질골에서 임플란트와의 골유착이 없이 밀접하게 접촉된 상태, B1; 피질골에 0.5 mm 폭의 수직 골흡수가 발생한 상태)과 생물학적 폭경이 형성된 상태 (B2)의 모형을 설계하였으며, 생물학적 폭경이 형성된 상태는 0.5 mm 폭을 가지며 임플란트 장축에 경사진 형태를 가지고 있는 1.5 mm 깊이의 수직 골흡수 상태로 형성하였다. 병적 골흡수 상태는 수직 골흡수를 가정한 기존 모형 (VW1.5, VW3.0)과 골흡수가 더 진행된 VW4.5, 기저부에 피질골화가 이루어지지 못한 VO3.0, VO4.5, VO6.0모형을 추가하였다. 하중조건은 수직, 수평하중 그리고 협측 $45^{\circ}$경사하중을 각각 100 N씩 임플란트 보철물 부위에 가하였다. 결과: 분석결과 수평 골흡수와 수직 골흡수에 있어서 전반적인 응력의 크기와 임플란트에 가해지는 응력의 크기는 서로 대응하는 모형에서 유사하였으며, 수직 골흡수에 서 수직력을 받을 때 C2에서 C4로 1.5 mm의 골흡수가 증가하였으나 골에서 발생한 최대응력은 오히려 감소하였다. 수직 골흡수에서 응력이 결손부의 수직 벽을 통해 상부로 분산되는 것을 볼 수 있었다. 생물학적 폭경 형성 단계에서 응력이 가해지는 경우 피질골에서의 결합이 없는 A2에서 피질골 전반에 높은 응력이 발생하였으며 생물학적 폭경의 완성을 가정한 B1에서는 임플란트와 피질골의 경계에서 발생한 응력이 경사진 피질골을 따라서 퍼져나가고 있음을 보였다. 병적 골흡수에서 골결손부 하방에 피질골이 없는 경우는 골흡수에 비례하여 응력이 증가 하였으나 피질골이 있는 경우에는 응력의 증가가 골흡수량의 증가와 비례하지 않음을 보였다. 결론: 임플란트 주변 골흡수의 양이 같아도 흡수된 형태에 따라 발생하는 응력의 크기와 응력분산이 다르게 나타났으며 초기 골흡수 현상은 피질골과의 결합이 약할 때 이 부위에 응력이 증가되어 나타나며, 이후 응력이 감소되어 평형을 이루는 것으로 보인다. 수직 골흡수가 증가할 경우 피질골의 존재 유무가 응력 분산에 큰 영향을 미치며 피질골이 있는 경우 일정 범위에서 응력의 감소가 나타나 응력분산에 유리한 형태에서 골흡수의 진행을 감소시킬 수 있을 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. The impact of oral implants-past and future, 1966-2042. J Can Dent Assoc 2005;71:327.
  2. Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, Bidez MW. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support. Implant Dent 2005;14:108-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000165033.34294.db
  3. Isidor F. Influence of force on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:8-18.
  4. Saadoun AP, Le Gall M, Kricheck M. Microbial infections and occlusal overload: causes of failure in osseointegrated implants. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1993;5:11-20.
  5. Lindhe, Berglundh T, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B, Marinello C. Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:9-16. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030102.x
  6. Lang NP, Bragger U, Walther D, Beamer B, Kornman KS. Ligature-induced peri-implant infection in cynomolgus monkeys. I. Clinical and radiographic findings. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:2-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040101.x
  7. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Bra􀆆nemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  8. Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:186-98. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.2.186
  9. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:1117-30. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.11.1117
  10. Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357-68.
  11. Hansson S. Surface roughness parameters as predictors of anchorage strength in bone:a critical analysis. J Biomech 2000;33:1297-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00045-2
  12. $H/"{a}mmerle$ CH, Bragger U, Bu ¨rgin W, Lang NP. The effect of subcrestal placement of the polished surface of ITI implants on marginal soft and hard tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:111-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070204.x
  13. Alomrani AN, Hermann JS, Jones AA, Buser D, Schoolfield J, Cochran DL. The effect of a machined collar on coronal hard tissue around titanium implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:677-86.
  14. Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:394-405. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100506.x
  15. Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg Ran, Levin L. Evaluation of long-term implant success. J Periodontol 2005;76:1623-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.10.1623
  16. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.
  17. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:567-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4
  18. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Runqcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  19. Barbier L, Schepers E. Adaptive bone remodeling around oral implants under axial and nonaxial loading conditions in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:215-23.
  20. Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:162-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130206.x
  21. Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:401-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01022.x
  22. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:559-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120603.x
  23. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Biological width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001001.x
  24. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2000;71:1412-24. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1412
  25. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-83. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1372
  26. Engquist B, Astrand P, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H, Grondahl K. Marginal bone reaction to oral implants: a prospective comparative study of Astra tech and Bra􀆆nemark system implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:30-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130103.x
  27. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent2006;26;9-17.
  28. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontal 2000;71:546-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  29. Spiekermann H, Jansen VK, Richter EJ. A 10-year follow-up study of IMZ and TPS implants in the edentulous mandible using barretained overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:231-43.
  30. Merickse-Stern R, Aerni D, Geering AH, Buser D. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged hollow cylinder implants. Clinical and radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:252-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x
  31. Wiskott HW, Belser UC, Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:429-44. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100601.x
  32. Mellal A, Wiskott HW, Botsis J, Scherrer SS, Belser UC. Stimulating effect of implant loading on surrounding bone. Comparison of three numerical models and validation by in vivo data. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:239-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01000.x
  33. Cha SB, Lee KB, Jo KH. Finite element approach to investigate the influence of the design configuration of the ITI solid implant on the bone stresses during the osseointegration process. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2006;44:217-28.
  34. Bragger U. Use of radiographs in evaluating success, stability and failure in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000 1998;17:77-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00125.x
  35. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8.
  36. Duyck J, Ronold HJ, van Oosterwyck H, Naert I, Vander Sloten J, Ellingsen JE. The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:207-18. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003207.x

Cited by

  1. Delayed Occurrence of Maxillary Sinusitis after Simultaneous Maxillary Sinus Augmentation and Implant: A Case Report and Literature Review vol.35, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14402/jkamprs.2013.35.1.060