Finite element stress analysis of implant prosthesis according to connection types of implant-abutment.
- Author:
Jin Kyung HUR
1
;
Kee Sung KAY
;
Chae Heon CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics and Oral Biology Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea. jhajung@mail.chosun.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
von Mises stress;
Finite element stress analysis;
Implant prosthesis;
Connection types of Implant-abutment;
Loading condition
- MeSH:
Crowns;
Finite Element Analysis;
Molar;
Prostheses and Implants*
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2005;43(4):544-561
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study was to assess the loading distributing characteristics of implant systems with internal connection or external connection under vertical and inclined loading using finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two finite element models were designed according to type of internal connection or external connection. The crown for mandibular first molar was made using cemented abutment. Each three-dimensional finite element model was created with the physical properties of the implant and surrounding bone. This study simulated loads of 200N at the central fossa in a vertical direction (loading condition A), 200N at the centric cusp tip in a 15.inward inclined direction (loading condition B), or 200N at the centric cusp tip in a 30.outward inclined direction (loading condition C) respectively. Von Mises stresses were recorded and compared in the supporting bone, fixture, abutment and abutment screw. RESULTS: 1. In comparison with the whole stress of the model 1 and model 2, the stress pattern was shown through th contact of the abutment and the implant fixture in the model 1, while the stress pattern was shown through the abutment screw mainly in the model 2. 2. Without regard to the loading condition, greater stress was taken at the cortical bone, and lower stress was taken at the cancellous bone. The stress taken at the cortical bone was greater at the model 1 than at the model 2, but the stress taken at the cortical bone was much less than the stress taken at the abutment, the implant fixture, and the abutment screw in case of both model 1 and model 2. 3. Without regard to the loading condition, the stress pattern of the abutment was greater at the model 1 than at the model 2. 4. In comparison with the stress distribution of model 1 and model 2, the maximum stress was taken at the abutment in the model 1, while the maximum stress was taken at the abutment screw in the model 2. 5. The magnitude of the maximum stress taken at the supporting bone, the implant fixture, the abutment, and the abutment screw was greater in the order of loading condition A, B and C. CONCLUSION: The stress distribution pattern of the internal connection system was mostly distributed widely to the lower part along the inner surface of the implant fixture contacting the abutment core through its contact portion because of the intimate contact of the abutment and the implant fixture, and so the less stress was taken at the abutment screw, while the abutment screw can be the weakest portion clinically because the greater stress was taken at the abutment screw in case of the external connection system, and therefore the further clinical study about this problem is needed.
