Effect of bone-implant contact pattern on bone strain distribution: finite element method study.
10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.214
- Author:
Dong Ki YOO
1
;
Seong Kyun KIM
;
Jai Young KOAK
;
Jinheum KIM
;
Seong Joo HEO
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 0504heo@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
FEA;
Bone-implant contact;
Implant;
Implant design;
Randomized osseointegration
- MeSH:
Bicuspid;
Finite Element Analysis;
Humans;
Nitrogen Mustard Compounds;
Sample Size;
Sprains and Strains
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2011;49(3):214-221
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To date most of finite element analysis assumed the presence of 100% contact between bone and implant, which is inconsistent with clinical reality. In human retrieval study bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio ranged from 20 to 80%. The objective of this study was to explore the influence of bone-implant contact pattern on bone of the interface using nonlinear 3-dimensional finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computer tomography-based finite element models with two types of implant (Mark III Branemark(R), Inplant(R)) which placed in the maxillary 2nd premolar area were constructed. Two different degrees of bone-implant contact ratio (40, 70%) each implant design were simulated. 5 finite element models were constructed each bone-implant contact ratio and implant design, and sum of models was 40. The position of bone-implant contact was determined according to random shuffle method. Elements of bone-implant contact in group W (wholly randomized osseointegration) was randomly selected in terms of total implant length including cortical and cancellous bone, while ones in group S (segmentally randomized osseointegration) was randomly selected each 0.75 mm vertically and horizontally. RESULTS: Maximum von Mises strain between group W and group S was not significantly different regardless of bone-implant contact ratio and implant design (P=.939). Peak von Mises strain of 40% BIC was significantly lower than one of 70% BIC (P=.007). There was no significant difference between Mark III Branemark(R) and Inplant(R) in 40% BIC, while average of peak von Mises strain for Inplant(R) was significantly lower (4886 +/- 1034 microm/m) compared with MK III Branemark(R) (7134 +/- 1232 microm/m) in BIC 70% (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Assuming bone-implant contact in finite element method, whether the contact elements in bone were wholly randomly or segmentally randomly selected using random shuffle method, both methods could be effective to be no significant difference regardless of sample size.
