Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP], Almeida, Daniel A.F., de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP], Santiago Júnior, Joel F., Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/176291
Resumo: The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of bone tissue around implants with different implant-abutment interfaces: platform switching (PSW); external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) with different diameters (regular: Ø 4 mm and wide: Ø 5 mm), bone types (I–IV) and subjected to axial and oblique load conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Sixteen 3D models of various configurations were simulated using InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and SolidWorks 2011 software, and processed using Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs. Axial and oblique forces of 200 N and 100 N, respectively, applied at the occlusal surface of prostheses. Maximum principal stress values were obtained from the peri-implant cortical bone of each model. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test for maximum principal stress values. Oblique loading showed higher tensile stress than axial loading (P < 0.001). Wide-diameter implants showed lower stress concentration rather than regular-diameter implants, regardless of both connection and bone type (P < 0.001). Under axial loading, wide-diameter EH implants with regular platforms showed more favorable stress distribution than PSW implants for axial loading (P < 0.001); however, under oblique loading, PSW implants exhibited lower stress concentrations (P < 0.001). Regular-diameter MT implants showed lower stress than EH implants (P < 0.001). Bone type IV showed higher stress in the cortical region than bone types I and II (P < 0.001), but no significant difference when compared with bone type III (P > 0.05). The conclusion drawn from this in silico is that MT implants should be considered for use in situations that preclude the placement of wide-diameter implants, particularly where bone types III and IV are concerned.
id UNSP_22e3e18c7c46cfab9f358498a1842bc5
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/176291
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysisBone typeDiameterFinite elementImplant-abutment interfacesThe purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of bone tissue around implants with different implant-abutment interfaces: platform switching (PSW); external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) with different diameters (regular: Ø 4 mm and wide: Ø 5 mm), bone types (I–IV) and subjected to axial and oblique load conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Sixteen 3D models of various configurations were simulated using InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and SolidWorks 2011 software, and processed using Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs. Axial and oblique forces of 200 N and 100 N, respectively, applied at the occlusal surface of prostheses. Maximum principal stress values were obtained from the peri-implant cortical bone of each model. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test for maximum principal stress values. Oblique loading showed higher tensile stress than axial loading (P < 0.001). Wide-diameter implants showed lower stress concentration rather than regular-diameter implants, regardless of both connection and bone type (P < 0.001). Under axial loading, wide-diameter EH implants with regular platforms showed more favorable stress distribution than PSW implants for axial loading (P < 0.001); however, under oblique loading, PSW implants exhibited lower stress concentrations (P < 0.001). Regular-diameter MT implants showed lower stress than EH implants (P < 0.001). Bone type IV showed higher stress in the cortical region than bone types I and II (P < 0.001), but no significant difference when compared with bone type III (P > 0.05). The conclusion drawn from this in silico is that MT implants should be considered for use in situations that preclude the placement of wide-diameter implants, particularly where bone types III and IV are concerned.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP - Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Health Sciences University of Sacred Heart – USCDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Federal University of AlfenasDepartment Prosthodontics Presidente Prudente Dental School University of Western São Paulo - UNOESTEDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP - Univ Estadual PaulistaFAPESP: 09/16164-7CNPq: 303874/2010-4Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)University of Sacred Heart – USCFederal University of AlfenasUniversity of Western São Paulo - UNOESTEPellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP]Almeida, Daniel A.F.de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP]Santiago Júnior, Joel F.Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP]2018-12-11T17:19:58Z2018-12-11T17:19:58Z2018-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article645-650application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012Materials Science and Engineering C, v. 90, p. 645-650.0928-4931http://hdl.handle.net/11449/17629110.1016/j.msec.2018.05.0122-s2.0-850466710722-s2.0-85046671072.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengMaterials Science and Engineering C1,110info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-10-06T06:01:35Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/176291Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-05-23T11:36:44.342119Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
title Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
spellingShingle Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]
Bone type
Diameter
Finite element
Implant-abutment interfaces
title_short Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
title_full Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
title_fullStr Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
title_sort Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
author Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]
author_facet Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]
Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP]
Almeida, Daniel A.F.
de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP]
Santiago Júnior, Joel F.
Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP]
Almeida, Daniel A.F.
de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP]
Santiago Júnior, Joel F.
Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
University of Sacred Heart – USC
Federal University of Alfenas
University of Western São Paulo - UNOESTE
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]
Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP]
Almeida, Daniel A.F.
de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP]
Santiago Júnior, Joel F.
Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Bone type
Diameter
Finite element
Implant-abutment interfaces
topic Bone type
Diameter
Finite element
Implant-abutment interfaces
description The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of bone tissue around implants with different implant-abutment interfaces: platform switching (PSW); external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) with different diameters (regular: Ø 4 mm and wide: Ø 5 mm), bone types (I–IV) and subjected to axial and oblique load conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Sixteen 3D models of various configurations were simulated using InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and SolidWorks 2011 software, and processed using Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs. Axial and oblique forces of 200 N and 100 N, respectively, applied at the occlusal surface of prostheses. Maximum principal stress values were obtained from the peri-implant cortical bone of each model. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test for maximum principal stress values. Oblique loading showed higher tensile stress than axial loading (P < 0.001). Wide-diameter implants showed lower stress concentration rather than regular-diameter implants, regardless of both connection and bone type (P < 0.001). Under axial loading, wide-diameter EH implants with regular platforms showed more favorable stress distribution than PSW implants for axial loading (P < 0.001); however, under oblique loading, PSW implants exhibited lower stress concentrations (P < 0.001). Regular-diameter MT implants showed lower stress than EH implants (P < 0.001). Bone type IV showed higher stress in the cortical region than bone types I and II (P < 0.001), but no significant difference when compared with bone type III (P > 0.05). The conclusion drawn from this in silico is that MT implants should be considered for use in situations that preclude the placement of wide-diameter implants, particularly where bone types III and IV are concerned.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-12-11T17:19:58Z
2018-12-11T17:19:58Z
2018-09-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012
Materials Science and Engineering C, v. 90, p. 645-650.
0928-4931
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/176291
10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012
2-s2.0-85046671072
2-s2.0-85046671072.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/176291
identifier_str_mv Materials Science and Engineering C, v. 90, p. 645-650.
0928-4931
10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012
2-s2.0-85046671072
2-s2.0-85046671072.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Materials Science and Engineering C
1,110
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 645-650
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1803045850963771392