Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
Review : Finite element analysis of dental implants with validation: to what extent can we expect the model to predict biological phenomena? A literature review and proposal for classification of a validation process [4]

Review : Finite element analysis of dental implants with validation: to what extent can we expect the model to predict biological phenomena? A literature review and proposal for classification of a validation process [4]

author: Yuanhan Chang, Abhijit Anil Tambe, Yoshinobu Maeda, Masahiro Wada, Tomoya Gonda | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

We classified all validation processes based on their similarity to real biomechanical behaviors into the following hierarchy (levels A to G) (Fig. 2):

Level A: performed in vivo (human bodies) (n = 1) [10]

The top level of the hierarchy, level A, includes in vivo methods of FEA validation conducted in humans. In 2006, Heckmann et al. [10] quantified the degree of stress that occurs in the bone around the implants as a result of fixation of cemented and screw-retained fixed partial dentures. They used a computer-aided design (CAD) model of an implant embedded in a bone block for FEA, and strain gauge experiments were performed under the same loading conditions with the use of a resin bone model and a human being for validation.

Level B: performed in vivo (heterogeneous animals) (n = 3) [11,12,13]

Three studies conducted animal experiments for FEA validation. In 2009, Hou et al. [12] conducted an FEA validation study involving rats to assess the histological change in the mechanical environment surrounding loaded and unloaded implants. In 1997, Natali et al. [11] performed a validation study in which they compared the influence of axial and nonaxial forces on the bone tissue surrounding oral implants placed in dogs. Both research groups used computed tomography data and CAD techniques to create an FEA model. Similarly, in 2015, Cha et al. [13] used murine femurs to place implants with low and high insertion torques for FEA validation.

Level C: model experiment performed using part of a cadaver (n = 4) [16,17,18,19]

Level D: model experiment performed using heterogeneous bone (n = 5) [20,21,22,23,24]

The next two levels in the hierarchy comprised in vivo model experiments on a section of a cadaver (level C) and the bone of heterogeneous animals (level D). Most of these studies involved mechanical testing, such as recording strain by a strain gauge attached to a dry skull or a section of bovine, porcine, or sheep bone. Bardyn et al. [20] compared the FEA-predicted removal torque with that measured using sheep bone and polyurethane foam as a validation technique. Olsen et al. [21] scanned a porcine mandible to create an FEA model and compared the FEA-predicted implant displacement with that measured on the same porcine mandible as a validation technique. Additionally, in 2002, Huang et al. [22] determined the vibrating behavior of a dental implant under various surrounding bone conditions using bone sections from hogs and FEA. The resonance frequency was compared between the two techniques, but in this case, FEA seemed more likely to serve as a validation technique to support the results of the model experiment.

Serial posts:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in