Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.214

Effect of bone-implant contact pattern on bone strain distribution: finite element method study  

Yoo, Dong-Ki (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kim, Jin-Heum (Department of Applied Statistics, University of Suwon)
Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.49, no.3, 2011 , pp. 214-221 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: To date most of finite element analysis assumed the presence of 100% contact between bone and implant, which is inconsistent with clinical reality. In human retrieval study bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio ranged from 20 to 80%. The objective of this study was to explore the influence of bone-implant contact pattern on bone of the interface using nonlinear 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Materials and methods: A computer tomography-based finite element models with two types of implant (Mark III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$, Inplant$^{(R)}$) which placed in the maxillary 2nd premolar area were constructed. Two different degrees of bone-implant contact ratio (40, 70%) each implant design were simulated. 5 finite element models were constructed each bone-implant contact ratio and implant design, and sum of models was 40. The position of bone-implant contact was determined according to random shuffle method. Elements of bone-implant contact in group W (wholly randomized osseointegration) was randomly selected in terms of total implant length including cortical and cancellous bone, while ones in group S (segmentally randomized osseointegration) was randomly selected each 0.75 mm vertically and horizontally. Results: Maximum von Mises strain between group W and group S was not significantly different regardless of bone-implant contact ratio and implant design (P=.939). Peak von Mises strain of 40% BIC was significantly lower than one of 70% BIC (P=.007). There was no significant difference between Mark III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$ and Inplant$^{(R)}$ in 40% BIC, while average of peak von Mises strain for Inplant$^{(R)}$ was significantly lower ($4886{\pm}1034\;{\mu}m/m$) compared with MK III Br${\aa}$nemark$^{(R)}$ ($7134{\pm}1232\;{\mu}m/m$) in BIC 70% (P<.0001). Conclusion: Assuming bone-implant contact in finite element method, whether the contact elements in bone were wholly randomly or segmentally randomly selected using random shuffle method, both methods could be effective to be no significant difference regardless of sample size.
Keywords
FEA; Bone-implant contact; Implant; Implant design; Randomized osseointegration;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Rubin PJ, Rakotomanana RL, Leyvraz PF, Zysset PK, Curnier A, Heegaard JH. Frictional interface micromotions and anisotropic stress distribution in a femoral total hip component. J Biomech 1993;26:725-39.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Ramos A, Simoes JA. Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys 2006;28:916-24.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Rho JY, Ashman RB, Turner CH. Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech 1993;26:111-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Meyer U, Vollmer D, Bourauel C, Joos U. Sensitivity analysis of bone geometries around oral implants upon bone loading using finite element method. Comp Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 2001;3:553-59.
6 Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo YC. Application of the finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2006;9:257-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Deng B, Tan KB, Liu GR, Lu Y. Influence of osseointegration degree and pattern on resonance frequency in the assessment of dental implant stability using finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1082-8.
8 Sennerby L, Ericson LE, Thomsen P, Lekholm U, Astrand P. Structure of the bone-titanium interface in retrieved clinical oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:103-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Garetto LP, Chen J, Parr JA, Roberts WE. Remodeling dynamics of bone supporting rigidly fixed titanium implants: a histomorphometric comparison in four species including humans. Implant Dent 1995;4:235-43.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Degidi M, Perrotti V, Strocchi R, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Is insertion torque correlated to bone-implant contact percentage in the early healing period? A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of 17 human-retrieved dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:778-81.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Block MS, Finger IM, Fontenot MG, Kent JN. Loaded hydroxylapatite-coated and grit-blasted titanium implants in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:219-25.
12 Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:104-11.
13 Lin CL, Wang JC, Ramp LC, Liu PR. Biomechanical response of implant systems placed in the maxillary posterior region under various conditions of angulation, bone density, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:57-64.
14 Roberts WE. Bone tissue interface. Int J Oral Implantol 1988;5:71-4.
15 Coelho PG, Marin C, Granato R, Suzuki M. Histomorphologic analysis of 30 plateau root form implants retrieved after 8 to 13 years in function. A human retrieval study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;91:975-9.
16 Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. 3D-FEA of osseointegration percentages and patterns on implant-bone interfacial stresses. J Dent 1997;25:485-91.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, Tu MG, Ko CC, Shen YW. Bone stress and interfacial sliding analysis of implant designs on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: a non-linear finite element study. J Dent 2008;36:409-17.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericson LE. A morphometric and biomechanic comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:62-71.
19 Pessoa RS, Muraru L, Junior EM, Vaz LG, Sloten JV, Duyck J, Jaecques SV. Influence of implant connection type on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants - CT-based nonlinear, three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:219-34.
20 Lian Z, Guan H, Ivanovski S, Loo YC, Johnson NW, Zhang H. Effect of bone to implant contact percentage on bone remodelling surrounding a dental implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:690-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Lin CL, Wang JC, Ramp LC, Liu PR. Biomechanical response of implant systems placed in the maxillary posterior region under various conditions of angulation, bone density, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:57-64.
22 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.
23 Sato Y, Wadamoto M, Tsuga K, Teixeira ER. The effectiveness of element downsizing on a three-dimensional finite element model of bone trabeculae in implant biomechanics. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:288-91.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Chou HY, Jagodnik JJ, Muftu S. Predictions of bone remodeling around dental implant systems. J Biomech 2008;41:1365-73.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Steinemann SG, Mausli PA, Szmukler-Moncler S. Betatitanium alloy for surgical implants. In: Froes FH, Caplan I, eds. Titanium' 92 Science and technology. Warrendale, PA: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1993. pp. 2689-96.
26 Slaets E, Carmeliet G, Naert I, Duyck J. Early cellular responses in cortical bone healing around unloaded titanium implants: an animal study. J Periodontol 2006;77:1015-24.   DOI
27 Slaets E, Carmeliet G, Naert I, Duyck J. Early trabecular bone healing around titanium implants: a histologic study in rabbits. J Periodontol 2007;78:510-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Hattori Y, Satoh C, Kunieda T, Endoh R, Hisamatsu H, Watanabe M. Bite forces and their resultants during forceful intercuspal clenching in humans. J Biomech 2009;42:1533-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 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;15:519-26.