Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(03): 454-462
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721549
Original Article

Evaluation of Bone–Implant Interface Stress and Strain Using Heterogeneous Mandibular Bone Properties Based on Different Empirical Correlations

Mostafa Omran Hussein 
1   Department of Prosthodontic Sciences, College of Dentistry in Ar Rass, Qassim University, El-Qassim, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammed Suliman Alruthea
1   Department of Prosthodontic Sciences, College of Dentistry in Ar Rass, Qassim University, El-Qassim, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare methods used for calculating heterogeneous patient-specific bone properties used in finite element analysis (FEA), in the field of implant dentistry, with the method based on homogenous bone properties.

Materials and Methods In this study, three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography data of an edentulous patient were processed to create a finite element model, and five identical 3D implant models were created and distributed throughout the dental arch. Based on the calculation methods used for bone material assignment, four groups—groups I to IV—were defined. Groups I to III relied on heterogeneous bone property assignment based on different equations, whereas group IV relied on homogenous bone properties. Finally, 150 N vertical and 60-degree-inclined forces were applied at the top of the implant abutments to calculate the von Mises stress and strain.

Results Groups I and II presented the highest stress and strain values, respectively. Based on the implant location, differences were observed between the stress values of group I, II, and III compared with group IV; however, no clear order was noted. Accordingly, variable von Mises stress and strain reactions at the bone–implant interface were observed among the heterogeneous bone property groups when compared with the homogenous property group results at the same implant positions.

Conclusion Although the use of heterogeneous bone properties as material assignments in FEA studies seem promising for patient-specific analysis, the variations between their results raise doubts about their reliability. The results were influenced by implants’ locations leading to misleading clinical simulations.

Keywords

CBCT-based finite element analysis - mandibular bone implant - heterogeneous bone properties - computed topography - bone–implant interface


Publication History

Article published online:
28 January 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mao Q, Su K, Zhou Y, Hossaini-Zadeh M, Lewis GS, Du J. Voxel-based micro-finite element analysis of dental implants in a human cadaveric mandible: tissue modulus assignment and sensitivity analyses. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 94: 229-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ovesy M, Indermaur M, Zysset PK. Prediction of insertion torque and stiffness of a dental implant in bovine trabecular bone using explicit micro-finite element analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 98: 301-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chang JZ-C, Chen Y-J, Tung YY. et al. Effects of thread depth, taper shape, and taper length on the mechanical properties of mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141 (03) 279-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cha JY, Pereira MD, Smith AA. et al. Multiscale analyses of the bone-implant interface. J Dent Res 2015; 94 (03) 482-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hou X, Weiler MA, Winger JN, Morris JR, Borke JL. Rat model for studying tissue changes induced by the mechanical environment surrounding loaded titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (05) 800-807
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Loading of bone surrounding implants through three-unit fixed partial denture fixation: a finite-element analysis based on in vitro and in vivo strain measurements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (03) 345-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sotto-Maior BS, Mercuri EGF, Senna PM. Assis NMSP, Francischone CE, Del Bel Cury AA. Evaluation of bone remodeling around single dental implants of different lengths: a mechanobiological numerical simulation and validation using clinical data. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2016; 19 (07) 699-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Alrbata RH, Yu W, Kyung HM. Biomechanical effectiveness of cortical bone thickness on orthodontic microimplant stability: an evaluation based on the load share between cortical and cancellous bone. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146 (02) 175-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zarone F, Apicella A, Nicolais L, Aversa R, Sorrentino R. Mandibular flexure and stress build-up in mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14 (01) 103-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bulaqi HA, Mousavi Mashhadi M, Geramipanah F, Safari H, Paknejad M. Effect of the coefficient of friction and tightening speed on the preload induced at the dental implant complex with the finite element method. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 113 (05) 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Choi KS, Park SH, Lee JH, Jeon YC, Yun MJ, Jeong CM. Stress distribution on scalloped implants with different microthread and connection configurations using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (03) e29-e38
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Lin D, Li Q, Li W, Duckmanton N, Swain M. Mandibular bone remodeling induced by dental implant. J Biomech 2010; 43 (02) 287-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chang Y, Tambe AA, Maeda Y, Wada M, Gonda T. Finite element analysis of dental implants with validation: to what extent can we expect the model to predict biological phenomena? A literature review and proposal for classification of a validation process. Int J Implant Dent 2018; 4 (01) 7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bujtár P, Sándor GKB, Bojtos A, Szűcs A, Barabás J. Finite element analysis of the human mandible at 3 different stages of life. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110 (03) 301-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Merdji A, Bouiadjra BB, Chikh BO. et al. Stress distribution in dental prosthesis under an occlusal combined dynamic loading. Mater Des 2012; 36: 705-713
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hussein MO, Rabie ME. Three-dimensional nonlinear contact finite element analysis of mandibular All-on-4 design. J Oral Implantol 2015; 41 (02) e12-e18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Guven S, Beydemir K, Dundar S, Eratilla V. Evaluation of stress distributions in peri-implant and periodontal bone tissues in 3- and 5-unit tooth and implant-supported fixed zirconia restorations by finite elements analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9 (03) 329-339
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bonnet AS, Postaire M, Lipinski P. Biomechanical study of mandible bone supporting a four-implant retained bridge: finite element analysis of the influence of bone anisotropy and foodstuff position. Med Eng Phys 2009; 31 (07) 806-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chevalier Y, Santos I, Müller PE, Pietschmann MF. Bone density and anisotropy affect periprosthetic cement and bone stresses after anatomical glenoid replacement: a micro finite element analysis. J Biomech 2016; 49 (09) 1724-1733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Al-Zordk W, Ghazy M, El-Anwar M. Stress analysis around reduced-diameter zirconia and titanium one-piece implants with and without microthreads in the neck: experimental and finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35 (02) 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lencioni KA, Noritomi PY, Macedo AP, Ribeiro RF, Pereira AR. Influence of different implants on the biomechanical behavior of a tooth-implant fixed partial dentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2020; 46 (01) 27-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Eraslan O, Inan O, Secilmis A. The effect of framework design on stress distribution in implant-supported FPDs: a 3-D FEM study. Eur J Dent 2010; 4 (04) 374-382
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dogru SC, Cansiz E, Arslan YZ. A review of finite element applications in oral and maxillofacial biomechanics. J Mech Med Biol 2018; 18 (02) 1830002
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Xin P, Nie P, Jiang B, Deng S, Hu G, Shen SGF. Material assignment in finite element modeling: heterogeneous properties of the mandibular bone. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24 (02) 405-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rho J-Y, Hobatho MC, Ashman RB. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys 1995; 17 (05) 347-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lettry S, Seedhom BB, Berry E, Cuppone M. Quality assessment of the cortical bone of the human mandible. Bone 2003; 32 (01) 35-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Keyak JH, Lee IY, Skinner HB. Correlations between orthogonal mechanical properties and density of trabecular bone: use of different densitometric measures. J Biomed Mater Res 1994; 28 (11) 1329-1336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Keller TS. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. J Biomech 1994; 27 (09) 1159-1168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Horita S, Sugiura T, Yamamoto K, Murakami K, Imai Y, Kirita T. Biomechanical analysis of immediately loaded implants according to the “All-on-Four” concept. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61 (02) 123-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Keyak JH, Rossi SA, Jones KA, Skinner HB. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 1998; 31 (02) 125-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cheng KJ, Liu YF, Wang JH. et al. Biomechanical behavior of mandibles reconstructed with fibular grafts at different vertical positions using finite element method. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019; 72 (02) 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nutu E, Ahmad S, Pastrama S. Influence of bone elastic properties on the predicted stress distribution in the dental implant vicinity. Mater Today Proc 2017; 4 (05) 5904-5908
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Liu YF, Wang R, Baur DA, Jiang XF. A finite element analysis of the stress distribution to the mandible from impact forces with various orientations of third molars. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2018; 19 (01) 38-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shu J-H, Yao J, Zhang Y-L, Chong DYR, Liu Z. The influence of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy on the stress distributions in the temporomandibular joints of the patients with facial asymmetry under symmetric occlusions. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (25) e11204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Marcián P, Florian Z, Horáčková L, Kaiser J, Borák L. Microstructural finite-element analysis of influence of bone density and histomorphometric parameters on mechanical behavior of mandibular cancellous bone structure. Diffus Defect Data Solid State Data Pt B Solid State Phenom 2016; 258: 362-365
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hu Z, Petoukhov SV, He M. Advances in Artificial Systems for Medicine and Education II. vol. 902. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing 2020
  • 37 Yassine RA, Elham MK, Mustapha S, Hamade RF. Heterogeneous versus homogeneous material considerations in determining the modal frequencies of long tibia bones. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther 2018;1(2)
  • 38 Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, Yilmaz B, Ersoy AE. Determination of bone quality of 372 implant recipient sites using Hounsfield unit from computerized tomography: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10 (04) 238-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Caetano GM, Pauletto P, Mezzomo LA, Rivaldo EG. Crestal bone changes in different implants designs: a prospective clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 497-502
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar