» Articles » PMID: 25098822

Biomechanical Evaluation of Subcrestal Dental Implants with Different Bone Anchorages

Overview
Journal Braz Oral Res
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2014 Aug 8
PMID 25098822
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study evaluated the biomechanical influence of apical bone anchorage on a single subcrestal dental implant using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Four different bone anchorage designs were simulated on a posterior maxillary segment using one implant with platform switching and internal Morse taper connection as follows: 2 mm subcrestal placement with (SW) or without (SO) the implant apex engaged into the cortical bone or position at bone level with anchorage only in the crestal cortical (BO) bone or with bicortical fixation (BW). Each implant received a premolar crown, and all models were loaded with 200 N to simulate centric and eccentric occlusion. The peak tensile and compressive stress and strain were calculated at the crestal cortical, trabecular, and apical cortical bone. The vertical and horizontal implant displacements were measured at the platform level. FEA indicated that subcrestal placement (SW and SO) created lower stress and strain in the crestal cortical bone compared with crestal placement (BO and BW models). The SW model exhibited lesser vertical and horizontal implant micromovement compared with the SO and BO models under eccentric loading; however, stress and strain were higher in the apical cortical bone. The BW model exhibited the lowest implant displacement. These results indicate that subcrestal placement decreases the stress in the crestal cortical bone of dental implants, regardless of apical anchorage; however, apical cortical anchorage can be effective in limiting implant displacement. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of possible remodeling around the apex on the success of subcrestal implants.

Citing Articles

Assessment of the Impact of Bone Quality and Abutment Configuration on the Fatigue Performance of Dental Implant Systems Using Finite Element Analysis (FEA).

Erdogdu M, Demirel M, Mohammadi R, Guntekin N J Pers Med. 2024; 14(10).

PMID: 39452546 PMC: 11508474. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14101040.


Socket shield technique: Stress distribution analysis.

Neves R, Lazari-Carvalho P, Carvalho M, Carvalho A, de Souza J, Torres E J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2023; 27(4):392-398.

PMID: 37593548 PMC: 10431233. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_356_22.


Bioengineering Tools Applied to Dentistry: Validation Methods for In Vitro and In Silico Analysis.

de Matos J, Queiroz D, Nakano L, Andrade V, Ribeiro N, Borges A Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(8).

PMID: 36005243 PMC: 9406698. DOI: 10.3390/dj10080145.


Comparison of stress and strain distribution around splinted and non-splinted teeth with compromised periodontium: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M, Dehnavi F, Brokhim M J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2022; 10(1):35-41.

PMID: 35919772 PMC: 9327446. DOI: 10.15171/japid.2018.007.


An experimental study on the effects of the cortical thickness and bone density on initial mechanical anchorage of different Straumann® implant designs.

Emmert M, Gulses A, Behrens E, Karayurek F, Acil Y, Wiltfang J Int J Implant Dent. 2021; 7(1):83.

PMID: 34458954 PMC: 8403613. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00367-2.