Results : Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants (1)
Compressed displacement
Figures 8 and 9 and Tables 2 and 3 show the results for the compressed displacement of the implants, by loading site, during the application of a 100-N vertical load in each of the models.
In all placements, the compressed displacement in the experimental models and FEA models was greatest with buccal loading and smallest with central loading at the three loading points. For both the experimental models and the FEA models, the compressed displacement during buccal loading with straight placement was significantly greater than that with the L-offset (P < 0.05). The compressed displacement during lingual loading with straight placement was significantly greater than that with the B-offset (P < 0.05).
Three-dimensional displacement in the FEA models
Figure 10 shows the results for the three-dimensional displacement of the implants, by loading site, during the application of a 100-N vertical load. Displacement in the buccolingual direction (x-axis direction) during buccal loading exhibited movement such that the implant neck was displaced to the buccal side, the implant tip was displaced to the lingual side, and the implant body rotated and tilted to the loading side. There was little displacement of the implant tip during lingual loading, while the implant body showed movement with the displacement to the lingual side. The least displacement was observed during central loading. Displacement in the mesiodistal direction (y-axis direction) was such that the three implant bodies were rotated and tilted distally at all three loading sites. The three-dimensional displacement in the vertical direction (z-axis direction) was such that in all three loading sites, no. 36 was displaced the most, and the more mesial the implant body, the lesser the displacement was, and the distal parts sank. The least displacement was during central loading; buccal loading and lingual loading exhibited similar displacements. Between placements, similar trends were found, and differences in implant placement were not found to affect the three-dimensional displacement or the direction of displacement.
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