Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite element method
Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite element method
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.005
复制
发表时间：
2023-03-03
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Pei, Xibo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li, Ruyi;Wu, Zhanglin;Pei, Xibo
问题陈述。短种植体的临床应用日益增多。然而，关于短种植体边缘骨丢失的研究很少，临床医生常常根据自己的经验而不是科学信息来选择短种植体。这项有限元分析研究的目的是评估 4 种短种植体在平台切换的不同植入深度下种植体周围骨和种植体组件中的微应变应力分布。材料和方法。以短种植体为原型，1:1建模了4个短种植体模型。种植体的直径和长度为 5x5、5x6、6x5 和 6x6 毫米。所有种植体的修复体都是相同的。设置了三种不同深度的种植体平台切换：等牙槽嵴、牙槽嵴下 0.5 毫米和牙槽嵴下 1 毫米。然后组装模型并指定 200 N 的咬合力（垂直或 30 度倾斜）。进行有限元分析以评估骨骼中的最大等效弹性应变和 von Mises 应力以及种植体组件中的应力分布。结果。 5x5 种植体组显示出最大的骨内应变（21.921x10(3) mu epsilon）。种植体直径增加 1 毫米，在承受倾斜力时，最大骨内应变减少 17.1% 至 37.4%。等牙槽嵴和0.5mm牙槽嵴下位置处的骨应变往往比1mm牙槽嵴位置处的放置深度小得多，特别是在斜力载荷下，增加了约37.4%至81.8%。此外，当皮质骨厚度小于4 mm时，5x6种植体引起的骨内应力明显高于6x6种植体。结论。大种植体直径（而不是长种植体）可以减少骨内应变，特别是在倾斜载荷下。关于种植体平台转换深度，当平台转换深度为等牙槽嵴或0.5毫米牙槽嵴下时，短种植体表现出较小的骨内应变。
Statement of problem. The clinical application of short implants has been increasing. However, studies on the marginal bone loss of short implants are sparse, and clinicians often choose short implants based on their own experience rather than on scientific information.Purpose. The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the microstrain-stress distribution in the peri-implant bone and implant components for 4 types of short implants at different placement depths of platform switching.Material and methods. By using short implants as prototypes, 4 short implant models were 1:1 modeled. The diameter and length of the implants were 5x5, 5x6, 6x5, and 6x6 mm. The restoration was identical for all implants. Three different depths of implant platform switching were set: equicrestal, 0.5-mm subcrestal, and 1-mm subcrestal. The models were then assembled and assigned an occlusal force of 200 N (vertical or 30-degree oblique). A finite element analysis was carried out to evaluate the maximum equivalent elastic strain and von Mises stress in the bone and the stress distribution in the implant components.Results. The 5x5 implant group showed the largest intraosseous strain (21.921x10(3) mu epsilon). A 1-mm increase in implant diameter resulted in a 17.1% to 37.4% reduction in maximum intraosseous strain when loaded with oblique forces. The strain in the bone tended to be much smaller than the placement depth at the equicrestal and 0.5-mm subcrestal positions than that at the 1-mm subcrestal position, especially under oblique force loading, with an increase of approximately 37.4% to 81.8%. In addition, when the cortical bone thickness was less than 4 mm, 5x6 implants caused significantly higher intraosseous stresses than 6x6 implants.Conclusions. Large implant diameters, rather than long implants, led to reduced intraosseous strain, especially under oblique loading. Regarding the implant platform switching depth, the short implant showed small intraosseous strains when the platform switching depth was equicrestal or 0.5-mm subcrestal.