Methods : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (3)
FEA software (Mechanical Finder®, Research Center of Computational Mechanics, Tokyo, Japan) was used to construct three-dimensional FEA models from the resulting CT data. The mesh was constructed of tetrahedral elements, and the total numbers of nodes and elements were approximately 260,000 and 1,400,000, respectively. FEA models were prepared with appropriate physical properties (Table 1) determined by consulting the values published by the manufacturer of the artificial mandible models and Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio used in past research. The implant, abutment, and superstructure were assumed to be a continuous structure made of titanium; no intervening conditions were set between the implant and abutment nor between the abutment and superstructure.
The artificial cortical bone, artificial cancellous bone, implant, and superstructure were assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. The boundary conditions for the implant and bone were a state of contact. The coefficient of friction of the interface between the implants and artificial mandibular bones was set to zero. The boundary conditions of the experimental model were reproduced by the contact model of FEA. Immediate loading was assumed in this model, because a state of contact was reproduced between the implant and artificial mandibular bone. The FEA models were made so as to correspond to each of the three experimental models with the respective placements, so nine FEA models were prepared similar to the experimental models.
Displacement measurements
Implant displacement measurements under loading conditions in the experimental model
Implant displacement under loading conditions was measured using an Instron-type universal testing machine (Instron-5500R®, Instron Japan, Kanagawa, Japan) for the experimental model. The experimental models were placed on the worktable of an Instron-type universal testing machine, and compression tests were performed using a conical jig. A vertical load was applied at a rate of 0.5 mm/s on the three loading points. Using a report stating that the maximum occlusal force applied to an implant superstructure in the molar region is 200 N as a reference, we selected 100 N for loading, to simulate the forces generated during mastication.
Serial posts:
- Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants
- Background : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants
- Methods : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (1)
- Results : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (1)
- Methods : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (2)
- Methods : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (3)
- Methods : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (4)
- Results : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (2)
- Discussion : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (1)
- Discussion : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (4)
- Discussion : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (2)
- Discussion : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (3)
- Discussion : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (5)
- References : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants
- Figure 1. An artificial mandible
- Figure 2. Three implants were embedded in an artificial mandible
- Figure 3. Three different models with different placements
- Figure 4. Experimental model. (a) Buccal load, (b) central load, and (c) lingual load
- Figure 5. Application of strain gauges
- Figure 6. Loading test in the experimental model
- Figure 7. A finite element analysis (FEA) model
- Figure 8. The displacement of the implants under loading in experimental models
- Figure 9. The displacement of the implants under loading in finite element analysis (FEA) models
- Figure 11. The strain around the no. 36 implant in the experimental models
- Figure 12. The strain around the no. 36 implant
- Figure 13. The distribution of equivalent stress around the peri-implant bone
- Figure 14. The distribution of equivalent stress around the no. 36 implant
- Figure 15. Load supporting area in the superstructures
- Table 1 Mechanical properties of materials used in the FEA models
- Table 2 Means and standard deviations (SD) of displacement of the implants
- Table 3 Means and standard deviations (SD) of displacement of the implants
- Table 4 Means and standard deviations (SD) of strain around the no. 36 implant
- Table 5 Tukey’s test for strain B in the experimental models
- Table 6 Tukey’s test for strain L in the experimental models
- Table 7 Means and standard deviations (SD) of strain around the no. 36 implant
- Table 8 Tukey’s test for strain B in the FEA models
- Table 9 Tukey’s test for strain L in the FEA models