» Articles » PMID: 17716255

The Staggered Installation of Dental Implants and Its Effect on Bone Stresses

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2007 Aug 25
PMID 17716255
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of offsetting the middle or peripheral implant on the compressive stress values in the crestal bone around the neck of the dental implant.

Materials And Methods: Three finite element models describing three titanium implants installed in quadrilateral pieces of bone was executed. A 2-mm nickel chromium superstructure representing a bridge was modeled over the implant abutments. In model 1, implants were installed along a straight line. Model 2 had the middle implant installed outside the line connecting the two peripheral implants buccally. Model 3 had the mesial implant installed out of alignment. Six 100-N loads were modeled on top of the mesial and middle implants of the three models individually. Loads 1 and 2 were directed vertically on the mesial and middle implants, while loads 3 and 4 represented the horizontal loads in the buccal direction. Loads 5 and 6 were directed mesially on the mesial and central implants. Maximal compressive stress levels in the crestal bone of the three models were then investigated.

Results: The results demonstrated that offset implant installation revealed slightly lower bone stresses under buccally or lingually directed horizontal forces. Slightly higher bone stresses under vertical loads were observed. Horizontal mesial or distal loads resulted in slightly higher bone stresses than those caused by buccal or lingual loading.

Conclusions: The in-line implant alignment clearly had the safest compressive stress outcome on the surrounding structure under vertical loads. Under buccolingual loads, implant alignment with peripheral offset would have, relatively, the safest compressive stress outcome on bone.

Citing Articles

A practical approach to orofacial rehabilitation in a patient after inferior maxillectomy and rhinectomy with mono framework construction supported on a zygomatic implant placed in the glabella: a case report.

Gaur V, Perumal S, Rahmaan F, Palka L Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021; 43(1):25.

PMID: 34255204 PMC: 8276903. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-021-00312-8.


Assessment of the stresses produced on the bone implant/tissue interface to the different insertion angulations of the implant - a three-dimensional analysis by the finite elements method.

Brum J, Macedo F, Oliveira M, Paranhos L, Brito-Junior R, Ramacciato J J Clin Exp Dent. 2020; 12(10):e930-e937.

PMID: 33154794 PMC: 7600206. DOI: 10.4317/jced.57387.


Stress distribution pattern of screw-retained restorations with segmented vs. non-segmented abutments: A finite element analysis.

Aalaei S, Rajabi Naraki Z, Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Shahrokhi Rad A J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2017; 11(3):149-155.

PMID: 29184629 PMC: 5666213. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2017.027.


Biomechanical effects of offset placement of dental implants in the edentulous posterior mandible.

Shimura Y, Sato Y, Kitagawa N, Omori M Int J Implant Dent. 2016; 2(1):17.

PMID: 27747709 PMC: 5005791. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-016-0050-6.


Influence of bone insertion level of the implant on the fracture strength of different connection designs: an in vitro study.

Gehrke S, Vianna M, Dedavid B Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 18(3):715-20.

PMID: 23860902 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1039-7.