Comparative Evaluation of Osseointegrated Dental Implants Based on Platform-switching Concept: Influence of Diameter, Length, Thread Shape, and In-bone Positioning Depth on Stress-based Performance

Overview

Journal Comput Math Methods Med

Publisher Hindawi

Specialty Medical Informatics

Date 2013 Jul 18

PMID 23861722

Citations 16

Authors

Luigi Baggi

Michele Di Girolamo

Giuseppe Vairo

Gianpaolo Sannino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the influence of implant design (in terms of diameter, length, and thread shape), in-bone positioning depth, and bone posthealing crestal morphology on load transfer mechanisms of osseointegrated dental implants based on platform-switching concept. In order to perform an effective multiparametric comparative analysis, 11 implants different in dimensions and in thread features were analyzed by a linearly elastic 3-dimensional finite element approach, under a static load. Implant models were integrated with the detailed model of a maxillary premolar bone segment. Different implant in-bone positioning levels were modeled, considering also different posthealing crestal bone morphologies. Bone overloading risk was quantified by introducing proper local stress measures, highlighting that implant diameter is a more effective design parameter than the implant length, as well as that thread shape and thread details can significantly affect stresses at peri-implant bone, especially for short implants. Numerical simulations revealed that the optimal in-bone positioning depth results from the balance of 2 counteracting effects: cratering phenomena and bone apposition induced by platform-switching configuration. Proposed results contribute to identify the mutual influence of a number of factors affecting the bone-implant loading transfer mechanisms, furnishing useful insights and indications for choosing and/or designing threaded osseointegrated implants.

Citing Articles

Influence of template design on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery.

Chung J, Park J, Son H, Hong S, Pae A J Adv Prosthodont. 2025; 17(1):22-35.

PMID: 40061028 PMC: 11886405. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2025.17.1.22.

A comprehensive biomechanical evaluation of length and diameter of dental implants using finite element analyses: A systematic review.

Qiu P, Cao R, Li Z, Fan Z Heliyon. 2024; 10(5):e26876.

PMID: 38434362 PMC: 10907775. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26876.

Crestal and Subcrestal Placement of Morse Cone Implant-Abutment Connection Implants: An In Vitro Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Study.

Comuzzi L, Ceddia M, Di Pietro N, Inchingolo F, Inchingolo A, Romasco T Biomedicines. 2023; 11(11).

PMID: 38002077 PMC: 10669349. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11113077.

Comparison of Different Types of Static Computer-Guided Implant Surgery in Varying Bone Inclinations.

Thangwarawut P, Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Kiattavorncharoen S Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(9).

PMID: 35591339 PMC: 9103329. DOI: 10.3390/ma15093004.

The state of the art of osseointegration for limb prosthesis.

Overmann A, Forsberg J Biomed Eng Lett. 2020; 10(1):5-16.

PMID: 32175127 PMC: 7046912. DOI: 10.1007/s13534-019-00133-9.

References

Maceri F, Martignoni M, Vairo G . Mechanical behaviour of endodontic restorations with multiple prefabricated posts: a finite-element approach. J Biomech. 2007; 40(11):2386-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.11.018. View

Shin Y, Han C, Heo S, Kim S, Chun H . Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(5):789-94. View

Rho J, Hobatho M, Ashman R . Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys. 1995; 17(5):347-55. DOI: 10.1016/1350-4533(95)97314-f. View

Akca K, Cehreli M . Biomechanical consequences of progressive marginal bone loss around oral implants: a finite element stress analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006; 44(7):527-35. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-006-0072-y. View

Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S . Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91(1):20-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008. View

Sannino G, Marra G, Feo L, Vairo G, Barlattani A . 3D finite element non linear analysis on the stress state at bone-implant interface in dental osteointegrated implants. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013; 3(3):26-37. PMC: 3399188. View

Hermann J, Schoolfield J, Schenk R, Buser D, Cochran D . Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 2001; 72(10):1372-83. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1372. View

Kozlovsky A, Tal H, Laufer B, Leshem R, Rohrer M, Weinreb M . Impact of implant overloading on the peri-implant bone in inflamed and non-inflamed peri-implant mucosa. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18(5):601-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01374.x. View

Maceri F, Martignoni M, Vairo G . Optimal mechanical design of anatomical post-systems for endodontic restoration. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2008; 12(1):59-71. DOI: 10.1080/10255840903065530. View

10.

Hermann J, Cochran D, Nummikoski P, Buser D . Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 1998; 68(11):1117-30. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1997.68.11.1117. View

11.

Taylor T, Belser U, Mericske-Stern R . Prosthodontic considerations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11 Suppl 1:101-7. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011s1101.x. View

12.

Kitagawa T, Tanimoto Y, Nemoto K, Aida M . Influence of cortical bone quality on stress distribution in bone around dental implant. Dent Mater J. 2005; 24(2):219-24. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.24.219. View

13.

Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjolfsson S, Viceconti M . Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007; 23(2):135-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.024. View

14.

Eckert S, Wollan P . Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79(4):415-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70155-6. View

15.

Natali A, Pavan P, Ruggero A . Evaluation of stress induced in peri-implant bone tissue by misfit in multi-implant prosthesis. Dent Mater. 2005; 22(4):388-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.08.001. View

16.

Cehreli M, Sahin S, Akca K . Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. J Dent. 2004; 32(2):123-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2003.09.003. View

17.

Petrie C, Williams J . Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16(4):486-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01132.x. View

18.

Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Menini M, Pera F, Mossolov A, Drago C . The influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in maxillary implant-supported fixed dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 105(1):5-13. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60182-5. View

19.

Bellini C, Romeo D, Galbusera F, Agliardi E, Pietrabissa R, Zampelis A . A finite element analysis of tilted versus nontilted implant configurations in the edentulous maxilla. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22(2):155-7. View

20.

Roos-Jansaker A, Lindahl C, Renvert H, Renvert S . Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part I: implant loss and associations to various factors. J Clin Periodontol. 2006; 33(4):283-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00907.x. View