TY - JOUR T1 - Maksilla Posterior Bölgede Vertikal Kemik Miktarının Yetersizliği Durumunda Uygulanan Kısa İmplantların Üzerindeki Ve Etrafındaki Kuvvet Dağılımının Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi ile Değerlendirilmesi TT - Evaluation of Stress Distribution with Finite Element Analysis on and around Short Implants in Case of Inadequate Vertical Bone Quantity in Maxilla Posterior Region AU - Kılınç, Adnan AU - Ataol, Mert AU - Saruhan, Nesrin AU - Gündoğdu, Mustafa PY - 2018 DA - December Y2 - 2017 DO - 10.17343/sdutfd.333523 JF - Medical Journal of Süleyman Demirel University JO - Med J SDU PB - Süleyman Demirel University WT - DergiPark SN - 1300-7416 SP - 349 EP - 355 VL - 25 IS - 4 LA - tr AB - Amaç:Bu çalışmanınamacı; 3 boyutlu sonlu elemanlar analiz yöntemi ile posterior maksiller dişsizbölgeye uygulanan kısa dental implantların üzerinde ve çevresinde oluşan kuvvetdağılımlarının incelenmesidir. Yöntem:Maksiller sinüspnömatizasyonu bulunan dişsiz posterior alana sahip sağlıklı bir bireyinbilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleri temel alınarak bir model oluşturuldu.Ardından 6,5 mm uzunluğunda ve 4 mm çapında vida tipi silindirik implant modelioluşturuldu. Vertikal ve oblik kuvvetler simüle edilerek üç boyutlu sonluelemanlar stres analizi yöntemi ile implant üzerinde ve çevre kemik üzerinde oluşanstresler değerlendirildi.Bulgular:Vertikal veoblik yükleme esnasında implant üzerinde oluşan streslerin değerlendirilimesiiçin von Mises stresi sonuçları hem sayısal olarak hem de renklendirilmişgörüntüler olarak kaydedilmiştir. Kortikal kemik ve kansellöz kemik üzerindebelirlenen 4 bölge üzerinde oluşan von Mises stres, çekme stresi ve baskıstresi sonuçları hem sayısal olarak hem de renklendirilmiş görüntüler olarakdeğerlendirilmiştir. Buna göre; streslerin kansellöz kemiğe oranla kortikal kemikteyoğun olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, en yüksek kuvvetler implant içerisindeoluştuğu ve dayanak-implant birleşimi yakınında, implantın kortikal kemik ilekomşuluk yaptığı bölge sınırında yoğunlaştığı görülmüştür. Sonuç:Çalışılan tümmodellerde elde edilen stres değerlerinin yıkıcı sınırlara yaklaşmamasısebebiyle, maksiller posterior dişsiz bölgede kısa implantların kullanımınınbaşarılı olabileceği öngörülmüştür. İmplantlara gelen oblik kuvvetlerinoluşturduğu stresin daha yüksek değerlerde olduğu düşünülerek, özellikle kısaimplant yerleştirileceği zaman, implantların mümkün olduğunca okluzalkuvvetlere paralel şekilde yerleştirilmesi biyomekanik açıdan önemlidir. KW - Sonlu Eleman Analizi KW - Kısa İmplant KW - Posterior Maksilla KW - Vertikal Kemik Yetersizliği N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was toevaluate the stress distribution on the short implant and surrounding bone thatwas applied to posterior maxillary edentulous region.Methods: The model was definedaccording to a computed tomography images of a healthy patient’s posterioredentulous region with maxillary sinus pneumatization. Then, 6.5mm length and4mm diameter cylindrical titanium implant was modeled. Vertical and oblique forces were simulated and evaluated withthree-dimensionally finite element analysis method.Results: For evaluating the stresseson the implant during vertical and oblique loading, von Mises stress resultswere recorded both numerically and as colored images. Von Mises stress,compressive stress and tensile stress on the four regions determined on corticalbone and cancellous bone were evaluated with numerical and colored images.According to results; stresses were found to be high in the cortical bonecompared to the cancellous bone. Also, the highest stress was found on theimplant body, and the stress were high at near the abutment-implant junction,region of the implant adjacent to the cortical bone.Conclusion: Itis predicted that the use of short implants in maxillary posterior region couldbe appropriate because the obtained stress values in all models were not highas the destructive limits. Taking into account that the stress on the implantsgenerated by the oblique forces is higher, for especially short implantplacement, it is important biomechanically that the implants should be placedas possible as parallel to the occlusal forces. CR - 1. Levi I, Halperin-Sternfeld DM, Horwitz J, Zigdon-giladi H, Machtei EE. Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus following tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla with and without socket preservation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;4:Baskıda. CR - 2. Martuscelli R, Toti P, Sbordone L, Guidetti F, Ramaglia L, Sbordone C. Five-year outcome of bone remodelling around implants in the maxillary sinus: assessment of differences between implants placed in autogenous inlay bone blocks and in ungrafted maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(9):1117-1126. CR - 3. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8(1):328-343. CR - 4. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation: Part I: lateral approach. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(Suppl. 8):216-240. CR - 5. Ömezli MM, Ertaş Ü. Zigoma İmplantları. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2015;10(Supp.):190-195. CR - 6. Raja S V. Management of the Posterior Maxilla With Sinus Lift: Review of Techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(8):1730-1734. CR - 7. Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: A systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2012;16(3):302. CR - 8. Maló P, De Araújo Nobre M, Rangert B. Short Implants Placed One‐Stage in Maxillae and Mandibles: A Retrospective Clinical Study with 1 to 9 Years of Follow‐Up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007;9(1):15-21. CR - 9. Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar RM, Arenovich T. A Targeted Review of Study Outcomes With Short ( ≤ 7 mm) Endosseous Dental Implants Placed in Partially Edentulous Patients. J Periodontol. 2001;75(6):798-804. CR - 10. Pohl V, Id O, Thoma DS, et al. Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a multi-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Perio. 2017:0-2. CR - 11. Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Checchi V, et al. Vertical bone augmentation versus 7-mm-long implants in posterior atrophic mandibles . Results of a randomised controlled clinical trial of up to 4 months after loading. Eur J Oral Imp 2009;2(1):7-20. CR - 12. Morand M, Irinakis T. The Challenge Of Implant Therapy in the Posterior Maxilla: Providing a Rationale for the Use of Short Implants. J Oral Implantol. 2007;33(5):257-266. CR - 13. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4–EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(S11):154-169. CR - 14. Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo Y-C. Application of the finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2006;9(4):257-270. CR - 15. Jain V, Shyagali TR, Kambalyal P, Rajpara Y, Doshi J. Comparison and evaluation of stresses generated by rapid maxillary expansion and the implant-supported rapid maxillary expansion on the craniofacial structures using finite element method of stress analysis. Prog Orthod. 2017;18(1):3. CR - 16. Fanuscu MI, Vu H V, Poncelet B. Implant Biomechanics in Grafted Sinus: A Finite Element Analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30(2):59-68. CR - 17. Koca ÖL, Eskitaşcıoğlu G, Üşümez A. Three-dimensional finite-element analysis of functional stresses in different bone locations produced by implants placed in the maxillary posterior region of the sinus floor. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93(1):38-44. CR - 18. Tepper G, Haas R, Zechner W, Krach W, Watzek G. Three‐dimensional finite element analysis of implant stability in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(6):657-665. CR - 19. Zhao L, Ph D, Herman JE, Patel PK. The structural ımplications of a unilateral facial skeletal cleft : a three-dimensional finite element model approach. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(2):121-130. CR - 20. Ozcelik TB, Ersoy E, Yilmaz B. Biomechanical evaluation of tooth- and ımplant-supported fixed dental prostheses with various nonrigid connector positions : a finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:16-28. CR - 21. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. A comparison of implant/prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8(5). CR - 22. Oh I, Nomura N, Masahashi N, Hanada S. Mechanical properties of porous titanium compacts prepared by powder sintering. Scr Mater. 2003;49(1):1197-1202. CR - 23. Nagaraja S, Couse TL, Guldberg RE. Trabecular bone microdamage and microstructural stresses under uniaxial compression. J Biomech. 2005;38(4):707-716. CR - 24. Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating Parameters of Osseointegrated Dental Implants Using Finite element Analysis - A Two-Dimensional Comparative Study Examing the Effects of Implant Diameter, Implant Shape, and Load Direction. J Oral Implantol. 1998;24(2):80-88. CR - 25. Cinel S, Celik E, Sagirkaya E, Sahin O. Experimental evaluation of stress distribution with narrow diameter implants : A finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2017:1-9. CR - 26. de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, de Faria Almeida DA, Junior JFS, Lemos CAA, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of the effect of an offset implant configuration in the posterior maxilla with external hexagon implant platform: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2017. UR - https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.333523 L1 - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/585860 ER -