Author:
Poovarodom Pongsakorn,Rungsiyakull Chaiy,Suriyawanakul Jarupol,Li Qing,Sasaki Keiichi,Yoda Nobuhiro,Rungsiyakull Pimduen
Abstract
AbstractThe optimal configuration of a customized implant abutment is crucial for bone remodeling and is influenced by various design parameters. This study introduces an optimization process for designing two-piece zirconia dental implant abutments. The aim is to enhance bone remodeling, increase bone density in the peri-implant region, and reduce the risk of late implant failure. A 12-month bone remodeling algorithm subroutine in finite element analysis to optimize three parameters: implant placement depth, abutment taper degree, and gingival height of the titanium base abutment. The response surface analysis shows that implant placement depth and gingival height significantly impact bone density and uniformity. The taper degree has a smaller effect on bone remodeling. The optimization identified optimal values of 1.5 mm for depth, 35° for taper, and 0.5 mm for gingival height. The optimum model significantly increased cortical bone density from 1.2 to 1.937 g/cm3 in 2 months, while the original model reached 1.91 g/cm3 in 11 months. The standard deviation of density showed more uniform bone apposition, with the optimum model showing values 2 to 6 times lower than the original over 12 months. The cancellous bone showed a similar trend. In conclusion, the depth and taper have a significant effect on bone remodeling. This optimized model significantly improves bone density uniformity.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference78 articles.
1. Goiato, M. C., dos Santos, D. M., Santiago, J. F., Moreno, A. & Pellizzer, E. P. Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 43, 1108–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.016 (2014).
2. Berglundh, T., Persson, L. & Klinge, B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J. Clin. Periodontol. 29(Suppl 3), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.29.s3.12.x (2002).
3. Baqain, Z. H., Moqbel, W. Y. & Sawair, F. A. Early dental implant failure: Risk factors. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 50, 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.074 (2012).
4. Manor, Y., Oubaid, S., Mardinger, O., Chaushu, G. & Nissan, J. Characteristics of early versus late implant failure: A retrospective study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 67, 2649–2652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.050 (2009).
5. Fu, J. H., Hsu, Y. T. & Wang, H. L. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 5(Suppl), S91–S103 (2012).