Journal of Dental Implants
   About JDI | Editorial | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Login 
Users Online: 2848  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 53-61

A 3-D finite element analysis of strain around end osseous threaded and non-threaded implant-opposing natural teeth with regular occlusion and altered occlusion: An in-vitro study


Department of Prosthodontics, Dayanand Sagar College of Dental College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication19-Apr-2014

Correspondence Address:
Prafulla Thumati
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.131001

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

The ideal goal of modern dentistry is to restore the patient to normal contour, function, comfort, esthetics, speech, and health. A dentist provides restoration either by removing caries from a tooth or by replacing several teeth. Implant dentistry is unique because of its ability to achieve this goal regardless of the atrophy, disease or injury of the stomatognathic system. Endosseous dental implants are used to retain and/or support for fixed or removable prosthesis in completely or partially edentulous patients. Successful long-term results of dental implants have led to an increase in their usage in many clinical situations. Although Implantology has advanced, failures also may occur with this type of treatment. The clinical success of an implant treatment is largely determined by the manner in which the mechanical stresses are transferred from implant to surrounding bone without generating forces of magnitude that would jeopardize the longevity of implant and prostheses. The present study was done to evaluate the strain around Endosseous Threaded and Non-Threaded implant opposing maxillary natural tooth with Regular and Altered occlusion by using 3-D Finite Element Analysis.

Keywords: Finite element analysis-fea, implant occlusion, megapascals-mpa, tooth implant connection, von misses stress


How to cite this article:
Reddy P M, Thumati P. A 3-D finite element analysis of strain around end osseous threaded and non-threaded implant-opposing natural teeth with regular occlusion and altered occlusion: An in-vitro study. J Dent Implant 2014;4:53-61

How to cite this URL:
Reddy P M, Thumati P. A 3-D finite element analysis of strain around end osseous threaded and non-threaded implant-opposing natural teeth with regular occlusion and altered occlusion: An in-vitro study. J Dent Implant [serial online] 2014 [cited 2022 Aug 7];4:53-61. Available from: https://www.jdionline.org/text.asp?2014/4/1/53/131001


   Introduction Top


The introduction of Osseo integrated implants in the early 1980s altered the way in which partially and fully edentulous patients are treated prosthetically. The structural differences between natural tooth and implants play an important role in stress distribution to the adjacent bone. [1] In the natural dentition, the periodontal ligament has the capacity to absorb stress or allow for tooth movement, and the bone implant interface has no capacity to allow movement of implant. [2] A key factor for the success or failure of a implant is the manner in which stresses are transferred to the surrounding bone. [3] Load transfer from implants to surrounding bone depends on bone-implant interface, length, diameter and shape of implant, occlusal loading and material, quantity and quality of surrounding bone, implant surface configuration, and presence of cantilever. [4],[5] Finite element analysis is an useful tool to identify stress distribution from implants to canecullous and cortical bone. [3],[6] Excessive stress at implant-bone interface is suggestive of peri-implant bone loss and failure and affects implant. [7] The occlusion in single implant should be designed to minimize occlusal force on to the implant and to maximize force distribution to adjacent natural teeth. [8]

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the strain around endosseous threaded and non-threaded implant opposing maxillary natural tooth with regular and altered occlusion by using 3-D Finite element analysis.


   Materials and Methods Top


Initially, computerized tomography (CT scan) of a normal human mandible aged about 26 years, male with no history of implant placement or any associated pathologies of the mandible was obtained using a Siemens CT scanner. The next step involved the transfer of the CT scan images to the ANSYS 11 Package using an intermediate graphical representation taken from core slices 0.2 mm apart extending from the head of the condyles to the inferior border of the mandible [Figure 1]a and b. The three-dimensional finite element model corresponding to the geometric model was meshed using Ansys Pre-processor (ANSYS version 12.0 software) [Figure 2]a and b.
Figure 1: (a)-Graphic representation of maxillary model, (b)- Graphic representation of mandibular model

Click here to view
Figure 2 : (a)-Meshed maxillary model, (b) Meshed mandibular model

Click here to view


A three-dimensional finite element model of Noble-biocare implant system was generated using Catia, popular modeling software, and mandibular right first molar region and was sectioned for the purpose of the study [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Meshed sectioned model of mandibular region

Click here to view


The dimensions of the implant are

Threaded implant: Length 10 mm and 6 mm diameter [Figure 4]
Figure 4: Cross section of mandibular threaded implant model

Click here to view


Non-threaded implant: Length 10 mm and 6 mm diameter [Figure 5].
Figure 5: Cross section of mandibular non-threaded implant model

Click here to view


The implant is positioned in the first mandibular region halfway between the mesio distal length and buccolingual width of the edentulous space. Complete osseo integration between implants and living tissues was assumed, resulting in continuity of implant-bone interface.

For the execution and accurate analysis of the program and interpretation of the results, two material properties were utilized, i.e. a Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. The mechanical properties of the interface material (bone ingrown into porous implant surface) were mathematically calculated, assuming it to be a composite material [Table 1].
Table 1: Mechanical properties of different models used in the model

Click here to view


Constraints were applied on the distal end of the model in all the three axes and omitting support at the bottom permitted bending of the model. These aspects make the model a more realistic representation of the clinical situation [Table 2].
Table 2: Number of elements and node used the models

Click here to view


A total of four models were made and grouped into two:

  1. Maxillary Natural Tooth opposing mandibular threaded implant in regular occlusion
  2. Maxillary Natural Tooth opposing mandibular non-threaded implant in regular Occlusion
  3. Maxillary Natural Tooth opposing mandibular threaded implant in altered occlusion
  4. Maxillary Natural Tooth opposing mandibular non-threaded implant in altered Occlusion.


The magnitude of applied loads was with in physiologic limits and direction of application of the loads simulated the clinical conditions.

An axial load of 250 N was directly applied onto the crown on threaded and non-threaded implants. A non-axial load of 100 N was applied onto the crown on threaded and non-threaded implants from buccolingual direction [Figure 6].
Figure 6: Direction and amount of forces applied

Click here to view



   Results Top


The color plots obtained were studied and maximum Von Mises stress and strain were noted and tabulated for each condition. The unit of stress is the unit of force (N) divided by a unit of area or length squared and is commonly expressed as Pascal. [9] Unit "Megapascals"-Mpa.

Stress and strain distribution in the FE models comes in numerical values and in color coding. Maximum values of von Mises stress is denoted by red color and minimum value by blue color. In between the values are represented by bluish green, green, greenish yellow and yellowish red in the ascending order of stress distribution.

[Figure 7], [Figure 8] and [Table 3] show the values of Von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary first molar and mandibular threaded implant in case of regular occlusion.
Figure 7: Stresses and strains around maxillary natural tooth opposing threaded implant in mandibular 1st molar region in case of regular occlusion, (a) Stress in cancellous bone, (b) Strain in cancellous bone, (c) Stress in cotical bone, (d) strain in cortical bone

Click here to view
Figure 8: Stresses and strains around a threaded implant in mandibular arch opposing natural tooth in case of regular occlusion, (a) Over all stress and strain around mandibular threaded implant, (b)Stress in cancellous bone, (c)Strains in cancellous bone, (d) Stress in cortical bone, (e)Strain in corticol bone

Click here to view
Table 3: Values of Von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary fi rst molar and mandibular threaded implant in case of regular occlusion

Click here to view


[Figure 9], [Figure 10] and [Table 4] show the values of Von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary first molar and mandibular non-threaded implant in case of regular occlusion.
Figure 9: Maxillary natural tooth opposing non threaded implant in 1st molar region in case of regular occlusion, (a)Stress in cancellous bone, (b) Strain in cancellous bone, (c) Stress in cortical bone, (d) Strain in cortical bone

Click here to view
Figure 10: Stress around non threaded implant in mandibular arch opposing maxillary natural tooth in case of regular occlusion, (a) Over all stress and strain around implant, (b) Stress in cancellous bone, (c) Strain in cancellous bone, (d) Stress in cortical bone, strain in cortical bone

Click here to view
Table 4: Values of Von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary fi rst molar and mandibular non threaded implant in case of regular occlusion

Click here to view


[Figure 11], [Figure 12] and [Table 5] show the values of von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary first molar and mandibular threaded implant in case of altered occlusion.
Figure 11: Stresses and strain around maxillary natural tooth opposing threaded implant in 1st molar region in case of altered occlusion, (a) Stress in cancellous bone, (b) Strain in cancellous bone, (c) Stress in cortical bone, (d) Strain in cortical bone

Click here to view
Figure 12: Stresses and strains around a threaded implant in mandibular arch in 1st molar region opposing maxillary natural tooth in case of altered occlusion. (a) Over all stresses and strains around implant, (b) Stresses in cancellous bone, (c) Strain in cancellous bone, (d) Stress in cortical bone, (e) strain in cortical bone

Click here to view
Table 5: Values of Von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary fi rst molar and mandibular threaded implant in case of altered occlusion

Click here to view


[Figure 13], [Figure 14] and [Table 5] show the values of von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary first molar and mandibular non-threaded implant in case of altered occlusion.
Figure 13: Stresses and strains around a maxillary natural tooth opposing non threaded implant in 1st molar region in case of altered occlusion, (a) Stress in cancellous bone, (b) Strain in Cancellous bone, (c) Stress in cortical bone, (d) Strain in cortical bone

Click here to view
Figure 14: Stress and strain around a non threaded implant in mandibular arch opposing natural tooth in case of altered occlusion, (a) Stress and strain around implant in cancellous bone, (b) Stress in cancellous bone, (c) Strain in cancellous bone, (d) Stress in cortical bone, (e) Strain in cortical bone

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Endosseous dental implants are currently used to retain and/or support prostheses for restoring completely or partially edentulous patients. [10]

Since load is transferred to bone through implant, careful planning and execution of the fixture insertion are the important factors in achieving appropriate stress distribution in the bone. [11] Unlike natural teeth, osseointegrated implants are ankylosed in the bone without the periodontal ligament, which provides mechanoreceptors as well as shock-absorbing function. Moreover, crestal bone around dental implants may act as a fulcrum point for lever action when a force is applied, indicating that peri-implant tissues could be more susceptible to crestal bone loss by applying force. [12] Bone resorption can be activated by surgical trauma or bacterial infection, as well as by overloading at the bone-implant interface. [13] An applied mechanical force produces stress and strain in the bone causing deformation of its structural arrangement. A bone with dental implants demonstrates a higher bone turnover rate during remodeling compared to the dentate situation. Increased bone turnover may result from repair stimuli caused by compressive and tensile loading in tissues adjacent to the implants. Excessive force acting on the implant caused bone reduction in the surrounding area followed by fibro integration, resulting in possible implant loss. [14]

FEA is an effective computational tool that has been adapted from the engineering arena to dental implant biomechanics. Load transmission and resultant stress distribution at the bone-implant interface is the subject of FEA studies. [15] FEA is used for analyzing dental implants, knee prostheses, and hip joints and the results depend on many individual factors, including material properties, boundary conditions, interface definition, and also on the overall approach to the model. The presented model is only an approximation of the clinical situation. The application of a 3-D model simulation with the non-symmetric loading by the masticatory force on dental implant resulted in a more satisfactory modeling of "clinical reality" than that achieved with 2-dimensional models used in other studies. [16],[17],[18],[19]

A 3 dimensional models of a threaded and non-threaded implant of above mentioned dimensions were designed and subjected to above mentioned occlusal loads. The resulting stress and strains patterns and magnitudes were studied.

The load applied for analysis in regular occlusion was concentrated over a larger surface area of the total occlusal surface of maxillary 1 st molar tooth and mandibular first molar abutment as compared to altered occlusion.

Finite element analysis:

Analysis was performed using ANSYS software. The following variables were analyzed.

  1. Stress and strain distribution in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding Maxillary Natural Tooth and Mandibular Threaded implant in case of regular occlusion
  2. Stress and strain distribution in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding Maxillary Natural Tooth and Mandibular Non-Threaded implant in case of regular occlusion
  3. Stress and strain distribution in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding Maxillary Natural Tooth and Mandibular Threaded implant in case of altered occlusion
  4. Stress and strain distribution in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding Maxillary Natural Tooth and Mandibular Non-Threaded implant in case of altered occlusion


Von Mises stress and strain in the above mentioned regions were measured and analyzed under different loading conditions. The results are tabulated as four tables from [Table 3],[Table 4],[Table 5] and [Table 6].
Table 6: Values of Von mises stress and strain in the cortical and cancellous bone surrounding maxillary fi rst molar and mandibular non threaded implant in case of altered occlusion

Click here to view


A consistent observation from the results was concentration of maximum stresses at the cortical and cancellous bone when subjected to loading.

Observations in regular occlusion in case of threaded implant

The overall stress recorded in maxillary bone was 34.152388 Mpa, whereas in mandibular bone was 151.371 Mpa, [Figure 8]a

Observation in cortical bone

The maxillary cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 32.7109 Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 7]c.

The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cortical bone was 0.002388 Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 7]d.

The mandibular cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 59.1948 Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 8]d.

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cortical bone was 0.004413Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 8]e.

Observation in cancellous bone

The maxillary cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 1.43805Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 7]a.

The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cancellous bone was 0.00105 Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 7]b.

The mandibular cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 11.5019 Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 8]b

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cancellous bone was 0.00843Mpa, [Table 3], [Figure 8]c.

Observations in regular occlusion in case of non-threaded implant

The overall stress recorded in maxillary bone was 34.132505 Mpa, whereas in mandibular bone was 131.825 Mpa, [Figure 10]a.

Observation in cortical bone

The maxillary cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 32.6918 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 9]c.

The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cortical bone was 0.002386 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 9]d.

The mandibular cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 37.8924 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 10]d.

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cortical bone was 0.002836 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 10]e.

Observation in cancellous bone

The maxillary cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 1.43727 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 9]a. The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cancellous bone was 0.001049 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 9]b.

The mandibular cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 4.72626 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 10].

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cancellous bone was 0.003471 Mpa [Table 4], [Figure 10]c

Observations in altered occlusion in case of threaded implant

The overall stress recorded in maxillary bone was 57.832995 Mpa, whereas in mandibular bone was 60.9905 Mpa, [Figure 12]a

Observation in cortical bone

The maxillary cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 55.411 Mpa, [Table 5], [Figure 11]c.

The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cortical bone was 0.004045 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 11].

The mandibular cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 30.1639 Mpa, [Table 5]; [Figure 12]d.

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cortical bone was 0.002249 Mpa, [Table 5]; [Figure 12]e.

Observation in cancellous bone

The maxillary cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 2.40 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 11]a.

The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cancellous bone was 0.001795 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 11]b.

The mandibular cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 5.84323 Mpa [Table 5], [Figure 12]b.

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cancellous bone was 0.004282 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 12]c.

Observations in altered occlusion in case of non-threaded implant

The overall stress recorded in maxillary bone was 49.76329 Mpa whereas in mandibular bone was 79.4719 Mpa, [Figure 14]a.

Observation in cortical bone

The maxillary cortical bone recorded the maximum strain of 0.003478 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 13]c.

The maximum stress recorded in maxillary cortical bone was 47.6503, [Table 4], [Figure 13]d.

The mandibular cortical bone recorded the maximum stress of 20.782 Mpa [Table 4], [Figure 14]d.

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cortical bone was 0.001557 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 14]e.

Observation in cancellous bone

The maxillary cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 2.10775 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 13]a.

The maximum strain recorded in maxillary cancellous bone was 0.01535 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 13]b.

The mandibular cancellous bone recorded the maximum stress of 2.39864 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 14]b.

The maximum strain recorded in the mandibular cancellous bone was 0.001762 Mpa, [Table 4], [Figure 14]c.

Within the limitations of the FEA study few clinical inferences can be drawn.

After studying the von Misses stress and strain patterns in our FEA models, we found that magnitude of stresses and strain along the natural tooth and surrounding bone in the region of maxillary 1 st molar are lesser when compared to opposing mandibular threaded and non-threaded implant in case of both regular and altered occlusion.

In case of regular occlusion, the maximum amount of stress developed in mandibular bone with threaded implant (151.371 Mpa) opposing natural tooth is higher than the stress developed in mandibular bone with non threaded implant (131.825 Mpa) opposing natural tooth.

In case of altered occlusion, the maximum amount of stress developed in mandibular bone with threaded implant (60.9905 Mpa) opposing tooth is lower than the stress developed in mandibular bone with non threaded implant (79.4719 Mpa) opposing natural tooth.

Stress concentration was evident around the implant neck at the cortical bone level in all the models. The reason may be because of high modulus of elasticity of cortical bone (E = 13700 Mpa), which provides more rigidity and thus more capability to withstand stress. The possible overloading factors include: Overextended cantilever, parafunctional habits/Heavy bite force, excessive premature contacts, large occlusal table, steep cusp inclination, poor bone density/quality and inadequate number of implants. Bone strain above 3000 micro strains may be troublesome for the bone, leading to a hypertrophic response, and bone strain above 4000 micro strains may cause local overloading followed by bone loss in locations of the acting force. [20] In the present study location of higher stress around the implant neck may indicate a danger of overloading in this area, as all size variations displayed maximum stress values. In cases of parafunctional activities and anatomical limitations the ideal placement of the implants, the role of biomechanics becomes even more crucial. Placing Threaded implants and Non-Threaded implants in altered occlusion, was reported to help in uniform distribution of stresses in implant and surrounding bone, thereby reducing chances of implant failure.

Within the limitations of the present study and on the basis of results obtained, it can be concluded that

  1. Under static axial and dynamic lateral loads, strain magnitudes around the endosseous non threaded implant were significantly equal than that of an endosseous threaded implant irrespective of the type of occlusion
  2. The stress magnitudes around natural tooth are higher in regular occlusion when compared to altered occlusion
  3. Stress around natural tooth in regular occlusion is same when opposing with threaded and non threaded implant
  4. Maximum amount of stress concentration was observed in the cortical bone suggesting that cortical bone plays a major role in the dissipation of the stress
  5. Stress distribution around threaded and non-threaded implant is higher in regular occlusion when opposing with natural tooth
  6. Implant occluding in regular occlusion showed larger amount of stress and strain magnitudes as compared to implant occluding in altered occlusion irrespective of type of implant. Hence, it was concluded that in case of single tooth implant prosthesis in posterior mandibular arch, altered occlusion causes lesser force delivery and results in lesser masticatory efficiency as compared to regular occlusion.


 
   References Top

1.Kim Y, Oh TJ, Mish CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G. Tooth-implant connection: Some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:334-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Djebbar N, Serier B, Bouiadjra Bachir B, Benbarak S, Drai A. Analysis of the effect of load direction on the stress distribution in dental implant. J Mater Design 2010;31:2097-101.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Vidyasagar L, Apse P. Restorative factors that affect the biomechanics of the dental implant. Stomatol Baltic Dent Maxillofac J 2003;5:123-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Rieger MR, Mayberry M, Brose MO. Finite element survey of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:671-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Gujjarlapudi MC, Nunna VN, Manne SD, Reddy SV, Kumar P, Meruva RN. Predicting Peri-implant Stresses around Titanium and Zirconium Dental Implants-A Finite Element Analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:196-204.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Misch CE, Bidez M. Implant protected occlusion, a biomechanical rationale. Compendium 1994;15:1330, 32, 34.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Anusavice. Skinners Science of Dental Materials. Publications. 11 th ed. 2003. p. 49-74.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Baggi L, Cappellion I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: A three dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:422-31.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Brosh T, Pilo R, Sudai D. The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: Comparison between two experimental techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:328-34.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Barbier L, Vander Sloten J, Krzesinski G, Schepers E, Van der Perre G. Finite Element Analysis of non axial versus axial loading oral implants of the mandible in the dog. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:847-58.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the endentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Isidor F. Loss of osteointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-52.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.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.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. Loading conditions of endosseous implants In an edentulous human mandible: A three-dimensional finite-element study. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:757-63.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for Endosseous Implants. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:104-11.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Lai H, Zhang F, Zhang B, Yang C, Xue M. Influence of percentage of osseointegration on stress distribution around dental implants. Chin J Dent Res 1998;1:7-11.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating parameters of Osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis- A Two Dimensional Comparative studies examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load Direction. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:80-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Bidez MW, Misch CE. Force transfer in implant dentistry; basic concepts and principles. I Oral Implantol 1992;18:264-74.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10], [Figure 11], [Figure 12], [Figure 13], [Figure 14]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]


This article has been cited by
1 Three-Dimensional Finite Element Investigation into Effects of Implant Thread Design and Loading Rate on Stress Distribution in Dental Implants and Anisotropic Bone
Dawit-Bogale Alemayehu, Yeau-Ren Jeng
Materials. 2021; 14(22): 6974
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3308    
    Printed123    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded466    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal