A Novel Design to Optimize Biomechanical Properties of Dental Implant

Year 2022, , 926 - 931, 30.12.2022

Salih Eren Meral , Hakan Tuz

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1005677

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Objective: The main objective of this study is to evaluate a novel design to optimize dental implant biomechanics. According to this objective, evaluations of the resilient implant design which aimed to mimic biomechanical behaviors of natural tooth have been made and outcomes were compared with natural tooth and standard dental implants with using 3D hyper-elastic finite element analysis. Methods: Models used in the study corresponding to conventional dental implant, natural tooth and resilient dental implant design. Hyperelastic model analysis were performed for close presentment of mechanical behaviors of resilient materials like periodontal ligament and medical silicone. Top values of maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress of surrounding bone and displacement of each model were evaluated under axial and non-axial loading conditions with magnitude of 30N, 80N and 100N. Results: Outcomes of finite element study showed reduction on maximum principal stress and minimum principal stress levels with the use of resilient dental implant comparing to the standard implant model. Standard implant model had been observed notably rigid in all loading conditions compared to the other models. Resilient implant model showed similar biomechanical characteristics with natural tooth model within the limitations of this study. Conclusion: According to finite element analysis results; resilient implant design was able to resolve some biomechanical discrepancies and seem to have adequate biomechanical similarity with natural tooth under both axial and non-axial loading conditions.

Keywords

Resilient dental implant, dental implant biomechanics, tooth biomechanics, shock absorber, hyper elastic analysis

Project Number

THD-2016-9569

References

• [1] Newman MG, Takei H, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza’s clinical periodontology: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011.
• [2] Abraham CM. A brief historical perspective on dental implants, their surface coatings and treatments. Open Dent J. 2014;8:5055.
• [3] Rosenlicht JL, Ward JA, Krauser JT. Immediate loading of dental implants. Dental implants: The Art and Science 2nd ed Philadelphia: Saunders. 2010:340-354.
• [4] Nelson SJ. Wheeler’s Dental Anatomy, Physiology and Occlusion-E-Book: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
• [5] Natali A, Pavan P, Carniel E, Dorow C. Viscoelastic response of the periodontal ligament: an experimental-numerical analysis. Connect Tissue Res. 2004;45(4-5):222-230.
• [6] Meunier L, Chagnon G, Favier D, Orgéas L, Vacher P. Mechanical experimental characterisation and numerical modelling of an unfilled silicone rubber. Polymer Testing 2008;27(6):765-777.
• [7] Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2012;23:22-38.
• [8] Misch C. Occlusal considerations for implant-supported prostheses: implant protective occlusion and occlusal materials. Contemporary Implant Dentistry 1999:609-628.
• [9] Boldt J, Knapp W, Proff P, Rottner K, Richter EJ. Measurement of tooth and implant mobility under physiological loading conditions. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger 2012;194(2):185-189.
• [10] Natali A, Pavan P, Carniel E, Dorow C. Viscoelastic response of the periodontal ligament: an experimental–numerical analysis. Connective Tissue Research 2004;45(4-5):222-230.
• [11] Pektaş Ö, Tönük E. Mechanical design, analysis, and laboratory testing of a dental implant with axial flexibility similar to natural tooth with periodontal ligament. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 2014;228(11):1117-1125.
• [12] Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff’s Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(1):3-15.
• [13] Sugiyama T, Torio T, Sato T, Matsumoto M, Kim YT, Oda H. Improvement of skeletal fragility by teriparatide in adult osteoporosis patients: a novel mechanostat-based hypothesis for bone quality. Front Endocrinol. 2015;6:6.
• [14] Quirynen M, Naert I, Van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and future success in the Brånemark® system. Clinical Oral Implants Research 1992;3(3):104-111.
• [15] van Steenberghe D, Tricio J, Van den Eynde E, Naert I, Quirynen M, editors. Soft and hard tissue reactions towards implant design and surface characteristics and the influence of plaque and/or occlusal loads. Annual International Conference Sponsered by Harvard School of Dental Med & National Institute of Dental Research, Date: 1993/01/01-1993/01/01, Location: Danvers; 1993.
• [16] Alvarez-Arenal A, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, Ellacuria-Echebarria J. Influence of implant positions and occlusal forces on peri-implant bone stress in mandibular two-implant overdentures: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Journal of Oral Implantology 2017;43(6):419428.
• [17] Chen YY, Kuan CL, Wang YB. Implant occlusion: biomechanical considerations for implant-supported prostheses. J Dent Sci. 2008;3(2):65-74.
• [18] Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2005;16(1):26-35.
• [19] Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. Threedimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1996;76(6):633-640.
• [20] Rosa LB, Bataglion C, Siéssere S, Palinkas M, Mestriner Jr W, de Freitas O. Bite force and masticatory efficiency in individuals with different oral rehabilitations. Open Journal of Stomatology 2012;2(1):21.
• [21] Flanagan D, Ilies H, Lasko B, Stack J. Force and movement of non-osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study. J Oral Implantol. 2009;35(6):270-276.
• [22] Gaggl A, Schultes G. Biomechanical properties in titanium implants with integrated maintenance free shock absorbing elements. Biomaterials 2001;22(22):3061-3066.
• [23] Anders I. Dental implant with shock absorbent cushioned interface. Google Patents; 1995.
• [24] Achour T, Merdji A, Bouiadjra BB, Serier B, Djebbar N. Stress distribution in dental implant with elastomeric stress barrier. Materials & Design 2011;32(1):282-290.
• [25] Meijer G, Heethaar J, Cune M, De Putter C, Van Blitterswijk C. Flexible (Polyactive®) versus rigid (hydroxyapatite) dental implants. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1997;26(2):135-140.
• [26] Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Van’t Hof MA, Visser A. A controlled clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years’ results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2004;15(4):421-427.
• [27] Mehdi G, Belarbi A, Mansouri B, Azari Z. Numerical study of effect of elastomeric stress absorbers on stress reduction in bone-dental implant interface. Journal of Applied Oral Science 2015;23(1):87-93.
• [28] Chen YY, Chen WP, Chang HH, Huang SH, Lin CP. A novel dental implant abutment with micro-motion capability— Development and biomechanical evaluations. Dental Materials 2014;30(2):131-137.
• [29] Genna F, Paganelli C, Salgarello S, Sapelli P. Mechanical response of bone under short-term loading of a dental implant with an internal layer simulating the nonlinear behaviour of the periodontal ligament. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2003;6(5-6):305-318.
• [30] Fiorillo L, Cicciù M, D’Amico C, Mauceri R, Oteri G, Cervino G. Finite element method and von mises investigation on bone response to dynamic stress with a novel conical dental implant connection. BioMed Research International 2020;2020.
• [31] Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE. Biomaterials science: An introduction to materials in medicine. MRS Bull. 2006;31:59.
• [32] Erkmen E, Meric G, Kurt A, Tunc Y, Eser A. Biomechanical comparison of implant retained fixed partial dentures with fiber reinforced composite versus conventional metal frameworks: a 3D FEA study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4(1):107-116.
• [33] Cruz RS, Lemos CAA, Oliveira HFF, de Souza Batista VE, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR. Comparison of the use of titanium–zirconium alloy and titanium alloy in dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Oral Implantology 2018;44(4):305-12.