The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of microthread design on marginal cortical bone strain developement: A finite element analysis

임플란트 경부 미세나사 디자인이 치밀골의 스트레인에 미치는 영향

  • Chun, Seung-Geun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Cho, Jin-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Jo, Kwang-Heon (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 천승근 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 조진현 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 조광헌 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2010.06.30
  • Accepted : 2010.07.12
  • Published : 2010.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The present study was aimed to evaluate the level of cortical bone strain during the placement of an implant. The primary concern was to investigate if the extent of overloading area near the marginal bone could be affected by microthread fabricated at the cervical 1/3 of an implant. Materials and methods: Three dimensional finite element analysis was used to simulate the insertion of 3 implants. Control model was $4.1{\times}10$ mm implant (Submerged model, Dentis Co,, Daegu, Korea) equipped with a main thread only. Type I was with main thread and microthread, and Type II had similar thread pattern but was of tapered body. A PC-based finite element software (DEFORM 3D ver 5, SFTC, Columbus, OH, USA) was used to calculate a total of 3,600 steps of analysis, which simulated the whole insertion. Results: Results showed that the strain field in the marginal bone within 1 mm of the implant wall was higher than 4,000 micro-strain in the control model. The size of bone overloading was 1-1.5 mm in Type I, and greater than 2 mm in Type II implants. Conclusion: These results indicate that the marginal bone may be at the risk of resorption on receiving the implant for all 3 implant models studied. Yet, the risk was greater for Type I and Type II implants, which had microthread at the cervical 1/3.

연구 목적: 이 연구는 임플란트 식립 시 미세나사가 변연골에 발생시키는 스트레인을 조사하여, 변연골의 골유착에 장애를 줄 수 있는 골의 과부하 영역 이 미세나사에 의해 확장되는 양태를 평가하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 3종의 임플란트 식립 모델을 삼차원적 유한 요소분석으로 실험하였다. 대조 모델은 미세나사가 없이 주나사만 있는 $4.1{\times}10$ mm 임플란트 (Submerged model, Dentis Co, Daegu, Korea), type I은 미세나사가 있는 straight body, type II는 미세나사가 있는 7% tapered body로 설정하였다. 임플란트가 치밀골을 통과하는 3,600 단계의 식립 과정이 모사되었다. 유한요소 해석에는PC용으로 출시된DEFORM$^{TM}$ 3D (ver 5, SFTC, Columbus, OH, USA)가 사용되었다 결과:임플란트 외벽으로부터 1 mm 이내의 변연골 스트레인 영역은 대조모델에서의 4000 ${\mu}$-strain 보다 높았다. Type I 임플란트의 경우 임플란트 외벽으로부터 1-1.5 mm 영역 이내의 인접골이 과부하 영역에 속하였고, type II 임플란트의 경우에는 2 mm 이상이었다. 결론: 미세나사의 유무와 몸체의 테이퍼 유무에 따라 변연골 스트레인은 직접적인 영향을 받았고 대조모델에 비해 경부 미세나사가 있는 type I 및 type II 임플란트의 식립 시 변연골의 과부하 영역이 월등히 컸다.

Keywords

References

  1. Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis-a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:80-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0080:EPOODI>2.3.CO;2
  2. Hi mmlova L, Dosta lova T, KacovskyA, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008
  3. Chun HJ, Cheong SY, Han JH, Heo SJ, Chung JP, Rhyu IC, Choi YC, Baik HK, Ku Y, Kim MH. Evaluation of design parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:565-74. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00891.x
  4. Hansson S, Werke M. The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 2003;36:1247-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00164-7
  5. Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: biomechanical study of flat top versus conical. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:33-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00104.x
  6. Hansson S. A conical implant-abutment interface at the level of the marginal bone improves the distribution of stresses in the supporting bone. An axisymmetric finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:286-93. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140306.x
  7. Saab XE, Griggs JA, Powers JM, Engelmeier RL. Effect of abutment angulation on the strain on the bone around an implant in the anterior maxilla: a finite element study. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.002
  8. Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:486-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01132.x
  9. 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
  10. Schrotenboer J, Tsao YP, Kinariwala V, Wang HL. Effect of microthreads and platform switching on crestal bone stress levels: a finite element analysis. J Periodontol 2008;79:2166-72. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080178
  11. Chung JM, Jo KH, Lee CH, Yu WJ, Lee KB. Finite element analysis of peri-implant bone stress influenced by cervical module configuration of endosseous implant. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:394-405. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.4.394
  12. Li YF. Comparative and analysis study of peri-implant bone stress around Rescue implant and standard implant using finite element method. Masters thesis, Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, 2009.
  13. Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:465-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01302.x
  14. 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 Branemark system implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:30-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130103.x
  15. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Grondahl K, Engquist E, Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Branemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:413-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01028.x
  16. Kwon MA, Kim YD, Jeong CM, Lee JY. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implants with dual-microthread: 1-year study. J Korea Acad Periodontol 2009;39:27-36. https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.2009.39.1.27
  17. Rasmusson L, Kahnberg KE, Tan A. Effects of implant design and surface on bone regeneration and implant stability: an experimental study in the dog mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:2-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00123.x
  18. Gotfredsen K. A 5-year prospective study of single-tooth replacements supported by the Astra Tech implant: a pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00021.x
  19. Palmer RM, Palmer PJ, Smith BJ. A 5-year prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:179-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2000.tb00012.x
  20. 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.
  21. Van de Velde T, Collaert B, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Effect of implant design on preservation of marginal bone in the mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:134-41.
  22. Jeong HC. Three dimensional finite element analysis of cortical bone strain induced by insertion of self tapping implant. Doctorate Thesis, Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea, 2008.
  23. Maniatopoulos C, Pilliar RM, Smith DC. Threaded versus poroussurfaced designs for implant stabilization in bone-endodontic implant model. J Biomed Mater Res 1986;20:1309-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820200907
  24. Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;208:108-13.
  25. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;43:192-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199822)43:2<192::AID-JBM14>3.0.CO;2-K
  26. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999: p.337.
  27. Han SU, Vang MS, Yang HS, Park SW, Park HO, Lim HP. Stress analysis of supporting tissues according to implant fixture diameter and residual alveolar bone width. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2007;45:506-21.
  28. Yu W, Jang YJ, Kyung HM. Combined influence of implant diameter and alveolar ridge width on crestal bone stress: a quantitative approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:88-95.
  29. Rubin CT, Lanyon LE. Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude. Calcif Tissue Int 1985;37:411-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02553711
  30. Frost HM. Wolff's Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod 1994;64:175-88.
  31. 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
  32. Frost HM. Bone's mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 2003;275:1081-101.