DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

임플란트 나사선 경사각과 식립 각도에 따른 3차원 유한요소 응력분석

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution for different implant thread slope and implant angulation

  • 서영훈 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 치의학과 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 임현필 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 치의학과 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 윤귀덕 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 치의학과 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 윤숙자 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 치의학과 구강악안면방사선학교실) ;
  • 방몽숙 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 치의학과 치과보철학교실)
  • Seo, Young-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lim, Hyun-Pil (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Yun, Kwi-Dug (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Yoon, Suk-Ja (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Vang, Mong-Sook (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University)
  • 투고 : 2012.08.24
  • 심사 : 2013.01.23
  • 발행 : 2013.01.31

초록

연구 목적: 임플란트 나사선 경사각이 치조골의 응력분포에 미치는 영향을 검토하여 어떤 임플란트가 응력분산에 유리한 지 알아보고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 피치는 0.8 mm로 일정하게 하고 나사선의 줄(thread) 수를 다르게 하여 나사선 경사각의 변화를 준 1줄 나사선 임플란트(single thread type: 경사각 $3.8^{\circ}$)와 2줄 나사선 임플란트(double thread type: 경사각 $7.7^{\circ}$) 그리고 3줄 나사선 임플란트(triple thread type: 경사각 $11.5^{\circ}$)의 세 가지 모델을 통해 3차원 유한요소 응력분석을 시행하였다. 임플란트가 치조골의 치아 장축에 대하여 $0^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$, $15^{\circ}$ 경사지게 식립된 것으로 가정하여 9 가지 모델을 만들었다. 200 N의 수직 방향의 하중과, 200 N의 임의의 $15^{\circ}$ 경사 하중을 가한 경우에 임플란트와 치조골에서 발생된 응력분포를 3차원 유한요소법으로 분석하였다. 결과:1. 임플란트의 경사 식립 각도가 클수록 치조골과 임플란트의 등가응력(von-Mises stress)과 최대주응력이 높게 나타났다. 2. 수직하중보다 경사하중을 가할 경우 치조골과 임플란트의 등가응력과 최대주응력이 높게 나타났다. 3. 임플란트의 나사선 줄 수가 증가할수록 응력분산 효과가 커서 등가응력과 최대주응력의 크기가 감소되었다. 4. 치조골에 작용하는 최대주응력의 크기는 수직하중 시에나 경사하중 시에 3줄 나사선을 가진 임플란트가 가장 작고 다음으로 2줄 또는 1줄 나사선의 순으로 나타나 3줄 나사선의 경우가 가장 우수한 결과를 보였다. 결론: 이상의 결과는 3줄 나사선 임플란트가 1줄 및 2줄 나사선 임틀란트보다 응력분산 효과 면에서 우수하며, $10^{\circ}$ 이상 경사지게 식립된 경우에라도 나사선 경사각이 커지면서 줄 수가 증가할수록 치조골에서 발생하는 최대 주응력 값이 감소하므로 임플란트 나사선 줄 수와 경사각을 최적화함으로써 임플란트 응력분산에 도움이 될 수 있음을 시사하였다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to find an inclination slope of the screw thread that is favorable in distributing the stresses to alveolar bone by using three dimensional finite element analysis. Materials and methods: Three types modelling changed implant thread with fixed pitch of 0.8 mm is the single thread implant with $3.8^{\circ}$ inclination, double thread implant with $7.7^{\circ}$ inclination and the triple thread implant with $11.5^{\circ}$ inclination. And three types implant angulation is the $0^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$ and $15^{\circ}$ on alveolar bone. The 9 modelling fabricated for three dimensional finite element analysis that restored prosthesis crown. The crown center applied on 200 N vertical load and $15^{\circ}$ tilting load. Results: 1. The more tilting of implant angulation, the more Von-Mises stress and Max principal stress is increasing. 2. Von-Mises stress and Max principal stress is increasing when applied $15^{\circ}$ tilting load than vertical load on the bone. 3. When the number of thread increased, the amount of Von-Mises stress, Max principal stress was reduced since the generated stress was effectively distributed. 4. Since the maximum principal stress affects on the alveolar bone can influence deeply on the longevity of the implants. When comparing the magnitude of the maximum principal stress, the triple thread implant had a least amount of stress. This shows that the triple thread implant gave a best result. Conclusion: A triple thread implant to increase in the thread slope inclination and number of thread is more effective on the distribution of stress than the single and double thread implants especially, implant angulation is more tilting than $10^{\circ}$ on alveolar bone. Thus, effective combination of thread number and thread slope inclination can help prolonging the longevity of implant.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  2. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark 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
  3. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X
  4. 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;7:450-8.
  5. Brunski JB. Biomaterials and biomechanics in dental implant design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:85-97.
  6. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7.
  7. 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
  8. Hoshaw SJ, Brunski JB, Cochran GVB. Mechanical loading of Branemark implants affects interfacial bone modeling and remodeling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:345-60.
  9. Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-52. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070208.x
  10. Rieger MR, Adams WK, Kinzel GL. A finite element survey of eleven endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:457-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90238-8
  11. Siegele D, Soltesz U. Numerical investigations of the influence of implant shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:333-40.
  12. Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:104-11.
  13. Bergman B. Evaluation of the results of treatment with osseointegrated implants by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:114-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90176-2
  14. Bidez MW, Chen Y, McLoughlin SW, English CE. Finite element analysis of four-abutment Hader bar designs. Implant Dent 1993;2:171-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199309000-00005
  15. Borchers L, Reichart P. Three-dimensional stress distribution around a dental implant at different stages of interface development. J Dent Res 1983;62:155-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620021401
  16. Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:633-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90442-4
  17. Rieger MR, Adams WK, Kinzel GL, Brose MO. Alternative materials for three endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:717-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(89)80049-6
  18. Rieger MR, Mayberry M, Brose MO. Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:671-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90325-7