Biomechanical analysis of different fixed dental restorations on short implants: a finite element study
Author:
Wagner Christian1, Herberg Samira1, Bourauel Christoph2, Stark Helmut1, Dörsam Istabrak12
Affiliation:
1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Preclinical Education and Materials Science, Dental School , University of Bonn Bonn , Germany 2. Oral Technology , University of Bonn Bonn , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Although the use of short implants is becoming more common for patients with atrophic alveolar ridges, their use is still quite limited. This is due to the lack of data of long-term survival compared to standard-length implants. The aim of this study was to determine the load in the bone and implant system with different superstructures.
Methods
Three kinds of prosthetic restorations were created on short implants based on CT-Data. Two short implants with different macro-geometries were used. The implants were inserted in idealised posterior lower mandibular segments and afterwards restored with a crown, a double splinted crown, and a bridge.
Results
The analysis was performed under load of 300 N either divided between a mesial and distal point or as a point load on the pontic/mesial crown. The different design of the implant systems had a noticeable influence on the stress in the cortical bone, in the implant system, and the displacement of the superstructure as well.
Conclusions
Compared with implants of standard length, higher stresses were observed, which can lead early failure of the implant during the healing period or a late cervical bone resorption. Precise indications are essential for short implants to avoid the failure of short implants.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biomedical Engineering
Reference40 articles.
1. Reich, KM, Huber, CD, Lippnig, WR, Ulm, C, Watzek, G, Tangl, S. Atrophy of the residual alveolar ridge following tooth loss in an historical population. Oral Dis 2011;17:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01699.x. 2. Esposito, M, Barausse, C, Pistilli, R, Sammartino, G, Grandi, G, Felice, P. Short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: one-year post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implant 2015;8:257–68. 3. Telleman, G, Raghoebar, GM, Vissink, A, Hartog, Lden, Huddleston Slater, JJR, Meijer, HJA. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:667–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01736.x. 4. Himmlová, L, Dostálová, T, Kácovský, A, Konvicková, 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. 5. Lops, D, Bressan, E, Pisoni, G, Cea, N, Corazza, B, Romeo, E. Short implants in partially edentuolous maxillae and mandibles: a 10 to 20 years retrospective evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013;2013:351793. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/351793.
|
|