Results : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (2)
Under Load200N, 20.3 % of the occlusal force was distributed at the molar site implants and 14.0 % of the occlusal force was distributed at the premolar site implants. The POF in the TMJ was larger than that in model-N. Under Load800N, the POF at the molar site implants was 36.3 %. However, almost no occlusal force occurred at the premolar site implants and anterior teeth. The POF in the TMJ was almost the same as in model-N.
Model-I
The results of model-I are shown in Fig. 8. Adj40N resulted in the concentration of approximately 40 % of the occlusal force at the most posteriorly located implant on each side under all loading conditions. In other words, about 80 % of the total occlusal force occurred at these implants. However, the occlusal force scarcely occurred at the premolar site implants and natural teeth. Around 10 % of the occlusal force was distributed at the TMJ. The POF was smaller than that in model-N.
Adj200N resulted in the concentration of the occlusal force at the most anterior implant under Load40N and Load100N. The POF in the anterior teeth and the TMJs was larger than that in model-N under Load40N and Load100N. Under Load400N, 38.0 % of the occlusal force was concentrated at the molar site implants. Under Load800N, 39.2 % of the occlusal force was concentrated at the molar site implants. Little occlusal force was present at the premolar site implants and natural teeth. At the TMJs, the POF was smaller than in model-N under Load400N and Load800N. Adj400N resulted in a concentration of occlusal force ten times larger at the most anterior implant than in model-N under Load40N, Load100N, and Load200N. The POF at the anterior teeth increased as the total occlusal load decreased. While the load was less than that exerted during occlusal adjustment, the POF at the most posterior implant was smaller than that in model-N. Under Load800N, 30.0 % of the occlusal force was concentrated at the most posterior implant. The POF in the TMJ was 23.3, 22.5, and 20.1 % under Load40N, Load100N, and Load200N, respectively.
Serial posts:
- Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants
- Background : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants
- Methods : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (1)
- Methods : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (2)
- Methods : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (3)
- Results : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (1)
- Results : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (2)
- Discussion : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (3)
- Discussion : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (3)
- Discussion : Effect of bite force in occlusal adjustment of dental implants (4)
- Table 1 Material properties
- Table 2 Size of each gap
- Figure 1. Finite element models (model-I and model-T)
- Figure 2. Boundary conditions to verify the displaceability of teeth
- Figure 3. Load-displacement curves of the springs
- Figure 4. Occlusal adjustment was simulated by altering the load-displacement curves of the springs
- Figure 5. Schematic diagram for each phase of the load-displacement curve
- Figure 6. FE model with natural dentition (model-N). Tooth root is displayed with permeability
- Figure 7. Load-displacement curve of the left canine
- Figure 8. Distribution of the occlusal forces