Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
저 시-비 리- 경 지 2.0 한민
는 아래 조건 르는 경 에 한하여 게
l 저 물 복제, 포, 전송, 전시, 공연 송할 수 습니다.
다 과 같 조건 라야 합니다:
l 하는, 저 물 나 포 경 , 저 물에 적 된 허락조건 명확하게 나타내어야 합니다.
l 저 터 허가를 면 러한 조건들 적 되지 않습니다.
저 에 른 리는 내 에 하여 향 지 않습니다.
것 허락규약(Legal Code) 해하 쉽게 약한 것 니다.
Disclaimer
저 시. 하는 원저 를 시하여야 합니다.
비 리. 하는 저 물 리 목적 할 수 없습니다.
경 지. 하는 저 물 개 , 형 또는 가공할 수 없습니다.
치의학석사학위논문
Influence of implant number and various
prosthodontic designs on biomechanical
behaviors of the implant-supported fixed
denture in posterior mandible:
A 3D finite element study
하악 구치부에서 임플란트 개수와 다양한
보철디자인이 임플란트-지지고정성보철물의
생역학적 거동에 미치는 영향:
삼차원 유한요소연구
2018 년 8 월
서울대학교 대학원
치의과학과 치과보철과 전공
정 원 경
ABSTRACT
Influence of implant number and various
prosthodontic designs on biomechanical
behaviors of the implant-supported fixed
denture in posterior mandible:
A 3D finite element study
Won Kyung Jung, BDS
Department of Prosthodontics
The Graduate School
Seoul National University
(Directed by professor Ho Beom Kwon, DDS, MS, PhD)
1. Purpose
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical
behaviors of implant-supported fixed prostheses with various designs
and different number of implants at mandibular posterior region using
3D finite element analysis.
2. Material and methods
Finite element models consisting of partially edentulous mandible at
posterior region, remaining teeth, implant system (Osstem US system;
Osstem Implant Co.) and prostheses were created based on the
patient’s computed tomographic data. Four models with the variations
were constructed as follows: four implants from first premolar to
second molar with non-splinted crowns (NS); four implants with
splinted crowns (SP); three implants at first and second premolar and
second molar with pontic (PT); two implants at first premolar and
first molar with cantilever design (CT). The frictional coefficient of
0.3 was set among the interfaces of implant system with 825 N of
preload at the implant screw. An oblique force of total 300 N at an
11.3-degree angle to the long axis of the implant was applied to the
occlusal surfaces of the crowns. The von Mises stress and
displacement of each component in the models were evaluated.
3. Results
The results showed that the von Mises stress in implant significantly
increased as the number of implants used in the models were
decreased, mainly for the cantilever design (577.7 MPa in model NS,
616.8 MPa in model SP, 649.3 MPa in model PT and 791.6 MPa in
model CT). On the contrary, cantilever model showed less stress than
other models in cortical bone and crowns (112.2 and 220 MPa
respectively). A non-splinted model resulted in less stress than
splinted one in the components such as cortical bone and implant
(151 and 577.7 MPa in model NS, 182.3 and 616.8 MPa in model SP)
However, lower stresses were observed in cancellous bone and
crowns for splinted model (31.9 and 297.7 MPa in model SP, 36.8 and
298.4 in model NS).
4. Conclusion
The reduction of the number of implants suggested higher stress
concentration in certain components of implant-supported fixed
prostheses. However, there was no significant relation between the
stress concentration and the number of implants in other components
such as bone or crowns. Thus, applying pontic or cantilever designs
could be also acceptable as treatment planning options.
………………………………………………………………………………
Keywords : Implant-supported fixed prostheses, Biomechaniacal
behaviors, Stress concentration, Finite element analysis
Student Number : 2016-22041
CONTENTS
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION …………………………………… 1
Ⅱ. MATERIAL AND METHODS …………………… 4
Ⅲ. RESULT ……………………………………………… 5
Ⅳ. DISCUSSION ………………………………………… 7
Ⅴ. CONCLUSION ……………………………………… 10
REFERENCES ……………………………………… 11
TABLES ……………………………………………… 16
FIGURES ……………………………………………… 20
국문초록 ……………………………………………… 24
1
Ⅰ. Introduction
Recent clinical researches have showed high success of the
implant-supported fixed prostheses increasing the quality of life of
partially edentulous patients.1-3 However, some implant failures which
caused by various factors have been also reported.4,5 One of them is
the biomechanical factor such as stress distribution, quality of bone,
number of implants, design and location of implants that may affect
the longevity of implants and lead to the success of implant
treatment.6 To reduce the stress distribution to implants and bone
tissue and increase the success rate of implants, favorable treatment
designs should be planned.7
There exist different treatment planning options of implant-supported
partial fixed prostheses using pontics or cantilevers as an alternative
to replace long span of missing teeth. Especially when the posterior
teeth are missing, treatment options with implant-supported fixed
prostheses would be different to those of anterior areas because of
differences in biomechanics with altered anatomy.8 Jivraj et al8
suggested that the outcome of implants in posterior quadrants can be
predicted depending on many variables such as implant position and
number, type of prosthesis and occlusal considerations. Particularly
the choice of the position and number of implants used for multiple
missing teeth may be related to biomechanical factors of implants
how stress is distributed to implant and the surrounding bone.9 Lee
et al10 mentioned that when the number of implant is decreased, the
biomechanical stress in the implant system would increase and it may
cause the bone loss due to its overload. They described that this
outcome may also be associated with bone quality and quantity.10
Moreover, previous studies reported that the type of cantilever
prostheses caused excessive stress concentration in supporting bone
inducing bone resorption and it would affect the longevity of
2
implant-supported fixed prostheses increasing the number of
complications.11-14
Although placing one implant for each missing posterior tooth is one
of common approaches to reduce biomechanical complications, it
would be still controversial how many implants need to be replaced
to rehabilitate the partially edentulous patients due to lack of
scientific evidence and backgrounds especially in biomechanical
concepts for dental practitioners.15,16 To place an implant for each
missing tooth requires thorough consideration with a variety of
clinical situations such as severe bone resorption or cost limitation.8
When even using ideal number of implants is allowed, it also needs
to be considered whether to splint or separate the restorations. It is
common to splint the crown in clinical practice as it distributes the
force applied to the implants minimizing transfer of stress to the
restorations.17-19 However, there are several studies with conflicting
results for splinting crowns as well.20,21 The results in clinical study
of Vigolo et al21 indicated that the implants with non-splinted
restorations could be successfully used for implant treatment showing
overall survival rates compared to those with splinted restorations.
Thus, it is important for dental practitioner to understand how those
different designs of implant-supported fixed prostheses influence the
biomechanical behaviors and develop better treatment plans to avoid
hazardous stress concentration in implant and its supporting bone. It
can prevent the biomechanical implant failure and enhance the
longevity of implants and prostheses.22
Three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) study is an
effective tool to investigate the results of biomechanical tests.23 It has
been employed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior such as stress
distribution pattern in the implant system and the bones in terms of
the implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs.24
3
A number of FEA studies have been conducted and compared the
stress distribution of different implant-supported fixed prostheses
designs.7,15,20,23 Khaki et al7 compared the stress distribution of
three-unit implant-supported fixed prostheses with splinted or
non-splinted restoration and the result showed that lower stress
values were induced in splinted implants. In contrast, Chen et al20
concluded in their study that when three mandibular posterior teeth
are missing, one implant for each missing teeth with separated
restoration was recommended. Batista et al15 evaluated the stress and
strain distributions of three-unit implant-retained prostheses with
pontic and cantilever designs. In accord with Chen’s result, they
suggested that placement of one implant for each missing tooth
provided lower stress and strain values and the use of cantilever
should be avoided when one implant for each missing tooth is not
possible because it could increase the chances of treatment failure
due to unfavorable biomechanical behavior.
Although there are several studies investigating the biomechanical
behaviors of different implant-supported fixed prostheses designs as
mentioned above, the influence of the designs to rehabilitate the
patients with multiple missing teeth especially in posterior quadrant
have still not been fully understood. Moreover, few studies were
conducted to compare the different designs simulating various clinical
scenarios including splinted or non-splinted restoration, pontic and
cantilever together as feasible treatment options.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of
various implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs with different
number of implants on mandibular posterior region verifying stress
distribution and displacement in components of implants and the bone
tissue by 3D finite element analysis.
4
Ⅱ. Material and methods
Total four three-dimensional finite element models of 4-unit
implant-supported fixed prostheses were developed based on a
patient’s computed tomography (CT) data to evaluate the stress
distributions around the bone and implants in partially and posteriorly
edentulous mandible. The models included implant-supported
prostheses with non-splinted (NS) and splinted (SP) prostheses,
pontic (PT) and cantilever (CT). An oblique load of 300 N on the
occlusal surface of the crowns with preload of 825 N in the abutment
screws was applied. The maximum Von Mises stress and maximum
displacement values of bone, teeth, implant system and crowns in the
models were analyzed to compare the biomechanical behaviors of the
models with different implant-supported prostheses designs. This
study was approved by the institutional review board of Seoul
National University Dental Hospital.
The partially edentulous mandible with missing teeth from first
premolar to second molar were created from the segmented CT scan
data using an image processing program (Mimics, Materialise). The
bone consisted of cancellous bone surrounded by approximately 2
mm-thick cortical bone. The geometries of external hex implant
system (Osstem US system; Osstem Implant Co.) was obtained from
the manufacturer. The dimensions of implant used in the study was 4
mm in diameter and 10 mm in height. Tetrahedral meshes of implant
systems and prostheses including remaining teeth and roots
surrounded by 0.3 mm-thick periodontal ligament in the mandible
were generated and assembled for finite element analysis with
meshing program (Visual-Mesh, ESI group).
Four finite element models with multiple 4-unit implant-supported
prostheses designs were created and each model was composed of
the mandible and teeth with implant, abutment, implant screw and
5
crown. Two models had 1 implant for each missing tooth with single
(NS) and splinted (SP) crowns. The model PT consisted of 3
implants on the first, second premolar and the second molar with
pontic. The model CT was comprised of 2 implants on the first
premolar and the first molar with distal cantilever (Fig. 1).
Configurations of the models are summarized in the Table 1.
The material properties of all components used for finite element
analysis were based on previous studies25,26 and summarized in the
Table 2. They were considered to be isotropic, homogeneous and
linearly elastic.27
Contact analysis was performed between the interfaces of implant
system among implant, abutment and screw with frictional coefficient
of 0.3.28,29 The implant was set to be tied to the abutment screw and
825 N of preload was applied on the abutment screw.30 The implant
was assumed to be bonded to the bone completely to simulate ideal
osseointegration. Total 300 N of oblique loading (50 N on premolars
and 100 N on molars respectively as applied 50 N in each buccal
cusp tip)15 at an angle of 11.3 degrees to the axis of the implant was
applied and the load was distributed to the buccal and occlusal
surface of the crown (Fig. 2).31,32
Finite element analysis was processed by Visual-Crash software
(Visual-Crash for PAM, ESI group). The maximum von Mises stress
and the displacement of each component of four different
implant-supported fixed prostheses models were compared and
evaluated.
Ⅲ. Results
Under oblique loading, stress concentration was observed in different
components of the models. Generally, higher stress appeared at the
abutment and the screw in all models representing similar stress
6
distribution patterns among the all models (Fig. 3).
As the number of the implants decreased, it had tendency to show
unfavorable results in implant, mainly for the cantilever configuration
(model CT). The maximum von Mises stress values in implant
increased from 577.7 MPa (model NS) to 616.8 (model SP), 649.3
(model PT) and 791.6 MPa (model CT). Model CT presented the
highest stress value (861.8 MPa) in abutment. The stress values of
Model PT were higher than those of Model NS or SP overall in
cancellous bone, fixture and crown. There was no significant
difference in stress values among the models in abutment and screw.
However, other results in different components such as bone and
crown other than implant were regardless of the reduction of number
of implants. Model CT presented the lowest stress values in cortical
bone and crown (112.2 and 220 MPa) among all models while model
PT showed the highest values in cancellous bone and crown (43.7
MPa and 305.4 MPa respectively). Furthermore, the maximum stress
values of model PT were mostly higher than those of model CT
except for implant despite of more number of implants. When
comparing single restoration with splinted crown, model NS had
lower stress values than model SP in cortical bone and fixture. In
cancellous bone and crown, model SP exhibited less stress than
model NS. The stress values in abutment and screw were not much
different between the model NS and SP (Table 3).
The maximum displacement occurred in abutment screws for all
models (Fig. 4). The displacement values of model NS were lower
than those of SP following the result of the maximum von Mises
stress values. Model PT presented higher displacement in abutment
and screw than model NS or SP. In addition, the displacements of
model PT in most components were higher than those of model CT.
Model CT showed the lowest displacement in cortical bone, fixture
and abutment (Table 4).
7
Ⅳ. Discussion
Four different designs were investigated for partially edentulous
mandible with missing teeth from first premolar to second molar in
this study. It was shown that a decrease in number of the implants
resulted in an increase of stress in the implants showing unfavorable
biomechanical behavior in the model as demonstrated in previous
studies.15,20,22 Yet, this trend was only limited to certain components in
the present study. The analyzed structure with 4 implants (model NS
and model SP) mostly had better biomechanical behavior than the one
with 3 implants with pontic configuration (model PT) following the
trend except for cortical bone. On the other hand, model CT with 2
implants presented the lowest stress value among all models in
cortical bone and crown and had lower stress concentration than that
of model PT in spite of less number of implants as an opposite result
to the previous studies.11,13,14 According to the results in this study, it
seemed that the use of pontic or cantilever with less number of
implants could be one of the alternative treatment options when
placing 1 implant for each missing tooth is impossible due to
limitations such as bone resorption, lack of space or financial reasons.
In this study, the applied force was total 300 N obliquely on the
prostheses. It was determined by the previous study15 to simulate the
human occlusal force which has numerous variations among the
individuals according to the anatomy of jaw and teeth or the textures
of food.33 Most of FEA studies to evaluate the biomechanical
behaviors of implant-supported prostheses applied the force only on
the certain point of the prostheses.15,22 Unlike those studies, the total
oblique force in this study was set to be distributed throughout the
area of buccal cusps and occlusal area of the crowns from the first
premolar to the second molar rather than concentrating the force on
particular portion of the prostheses. It may have influenced the
8
results of the study and can be distinguished from the other previous
studies.
A significant difference in stress value among all four models was
not found in abutment and screw. There existed similar stress
distribution and displacement patterns in all models with higher stress
and displacement values in abutment and screw compared to other
components. This may be due to the preload applied to the implant
system in this study. As the abutment screw is tightened, the
clamping force from the screw's head to the threads is generated to
hold the implant and the abutment together.34 The preload should be
more than occlusal force for achieving stability of the screw. The
preload of 825 N was used as an optimum preload in this study
which was reported to be ideally 75% of the yield strength of
screw.30 The fact that higher stress concentration and displacement
was detected mainly in screw can lead to the clinical complications
such as screw loosening or screw fracture. It would require to
consider retightening or replacing of screw later with care. Thus, it
can be said that taking preload condition into consideration for the
study would be inevitable to simulate the biomechanical behaviors of
implant-supported prostheses.
In most studies regarding splinting the implant crowns, they
suggested that splinting the crown together caused favorable stress
distribution to implant and the bone and had biomechanical
advantages.7,17,18 Khaki et al7 carried out the FEA study with three
implants in mandible from first premolar to first molar and found that
stress values of 3 seperated restorations were higher than 3
connected ones. Bergkvist et al17 demonstrated that stress values of 6
splinted implants were greatly lower than non-splinted implants in
maxilla. Guichet et al18 exhibited similar results and also found that
non-splinted restoration with heavier interproximal contacts showed
9
higher stress values than that with open contacts. They are not
consistent with the results of this study. Separated crowns have
shown the lower stress values than splinted ones in cortical bone and
implant in the study. In addition, little difference in stress was found
in abutment and screw between two models. Vigolo et al21 conducted
a 5-year prospective clinical study to compare the changes in
marginal bone level of splinted and non-splinted implants in maxilla
and concluded that marginal bone loss observed in non-splinted
implant was not statistically different to that in splinted one. Chen et
al20 also reported that there was no significant difference between
single and splinted crowns for three implants supported fixed
prostheses in posterior mandible. They mentioned that it should be
evaluated depending on different areas of dental arch, number of
implants, span and occlusal scheme to decide which one is more
beneficial.20 In addition, non-splinted crown could be better for
maintaining oral hygiene allowing better access to interproximal
surfaces.35
A long-term success of dental implant with implant-supported fixed
prostheses requires several considerations with good control of
biomechanical factors.20 To evaluate the performance of
implant-supported prostheses with various configurations, FEA may
be a useful tool as computer-aided analyses. It has been widely used
to predict stress distributions at implant and prostheses including
peri-implant regions and assess the influences of implant and
prostheses designs in different clinical situations.22 However, it needs
to be pointed out that several assumptions which the materials used
are isotropic, homogeneous and linearly elastic27 were included for this
study to simplify the study.
For further study, it would be necessary to develop the analyzed
FEA models of the study by adding more critical situations with a
10
variety of implant length, implant design and other prosthetic
configurations.
Ⅴ. Conclusion
Within the limitation, the following conclusions can be drawn from
this 3D finite element analysis.
1. The reduction of number of implants provided lower stress
concentration in certain components of implant-supported fixed
prostheses, especially in implant. However, the results on stress
concentration in other components such as bone or crowns were
regardless of the number of implants or different prosthetic
designs.
2. When placing one implant for each missing tooth is not possible
due to critical clinical situations, the use of pontic or catilever
could be also one of alternatives as treatment options for partially
edentulous patients.
11
REFERENCES
1. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Sing M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO.
Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systemic review. J Dent Res
2012; 91:242-248
2. Gallucci GO, Doughtie CB, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP, Weber HP.
Five-year results of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal
cantilevers for the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;
20:601-607.
3. Lambert FE, Weber HP, Susarla SM, Belser UC, Gallucci GO.
Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with
fixed implant-supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J
Periodontol 2009; 80:1220-1230.
4. Creugers NHJ, Kreulen CM, Snoek PA, de Kanter RJ. A
systematic review of single-tooth restoration supported by implants.
Journal of Dentistry 2000; 28:209-217
5. Setia G, Yousef H, Ehrenberg D, Luke A, Weiner S. The effect of
Loading on the Poreload and Dimensions of the Abutment Screw for
a 3-unit Cantilever Fixed Prosthesis Design. Implant Dent 2013;
22:414-420
6. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF Jr, Moreno A, Pellizzer
EP. Longetivity of dental implants in type Ⅳ bone: a systemic
review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43:1108-1116
7. Khaki MN, Geramy A, Shahbeyk S, Mohammadi MM. Finite
Element Analysis of Stress Distribution on 3-unit Implant-supported
fixed prostheses, Splinted and Non-splinted. Advances in Bioresearch
2016; 7:42-48
8. Jivraj S, Chee W. Treatment planning of implants in posterior
quadrants. Br Dent J. 2006; 201:13-23
12
9. Misch CE. Consideration of biomechanical stress in treatment with
dental implants. Dent Today 2006; 25:80,82,84-85
10. Lee JI, Lee Y, Kim YL, Cho HW. Effect of implant number and
distribution on load transfer in implant–supported partial fixed dental
prostheses for the anterior maxilla: A photoela``stic analysis study. J
Prosthet Dent 2016;115:161-169
11. Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The
influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for
three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91:234-240
12. Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element
analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J
Prosthodont 2002; 11:30-40
13. Gonda T, Yasuda D, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. Biomechanical Factors
Assocciated with Mandibular Cantilevers: Analysis with
Three-dimensional Finite Element Models. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 2014; 29:275-282
14. Sallam H, Kheiralla LS, Aldawakly A. Microstrains around
standard and mini implants supporting different bridge designs. J Oral
Implantol 2012; 38:221-229
15. Batista VE, Verri FR, Almeida DA, Santiago Jr JF, Lemos CAA,
Pellizzer EP. Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis
with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla. Comput methods
in Biomech Biomed Eng 2017; 20:663-670
16. İplikçioğlu H, Akça K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of
diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed
partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;
30:41-46
17. Bergkvist G, Simonsson K, Rydberg K. A finite element analysis
of stress distribution in bone tissue surrounding uncoupled or splinted
13
dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10:40-46
18. Guichet DL, Yoshinobu D, Caputo AA. Effect of splinting and
interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant
restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87:528-535
19. Sadowsky SJ, Bedrossian E. Evidenced-Based Criteria for
Differential Treatment Planning of Implant Restorations for the
Partially Edentulous Patient. J Prosthodont 2013; 22:319-329
20. Chen XY, Zhang CY, Nie EM, Zhang MC. Treatment planning of
implants when 3 mandibular posterior teeth are missing: a
3-dimensional finite element analysis. Implant Dent 2012; 21:340-343
21. Vigolo P, Zaccaria M. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level
change of multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and
nonsplinted restorations; A 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25:1189-1194
22. Alencar SMM, Nogueira LBLV, de Moura WL, Rubo JH, Silva
TS, Martins GAS, Moura CDVS. FEA of Peri-Implant Stresses in
Fixed Partial Denture Prostheses with Cantilevers. J Prosthodont
2017; 26:150-155
23. Rand A, Kohorst P, Greuling A, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Stress
Distribution in All-Ceramic Posterior 4-Unit Fixed Dental Prostheses
Supported in Different Ways: Finite Element Analysis. Implant Dent
2016; 25:485-491
24. Verri FR, Cruz RS, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Verri AC,
Pelllizzer EP. Can the modelling for simplification of a dental implant
surface affect the accuracy of 3D finite element analysis? Comput
methods in Biomech Biomed Eng 2016; 19:1665-1672
25. Razaghi R, Mallakzadeh M, Haghpanahi M. Dynamic simulation
and finite element analysis of the maxillary bone injury around dental
implant during chewing different food. Biomedical Engineering:
Applications, Basis and Communications 2016; 28:1650014
14
26. Chang HS, Chen YC, Hsieh YD, Hsu ML Stress distribution of
two commercial dental implant systems: A three-dimensional finite
element analysis. J Dent Sciences 2013; 8:261-271
27. Geng JP, Tan KBC, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis
in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;
585-98
28. Alkan I, Sertgoz A, Ekici B. Influence of occlusal forces on stress
distribution in preloaded dental implant screws. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;
91:319-325
29. Camargos GV, Sotto-Maior BS, Silva WJ, Lazari PC, Del Bel
Cury AA. Prosthetic abutment influences bone biomechanical behavior
of immediately loaded implants. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30:e65
30. Lang LA, Kang BS, Wang RF, Lang BR. Finite element analysis
to determine implant preload. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90:539-46
31. Chou HY, Muftu S, Bozkaya D. Combined effects of implant
insertion depth and alveolar bone quality on periimplant bone strain
induced by a wide-diameter, short implant and a narrow-diameter,
long implant. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 04:293-300
32. Bozkaya D. Muftu S, Muftu Ali. Evaluation of load transfer
characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different
load levels by finite elements analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;
92:523-530
33. Chun HJ, Shin HS, Han CH, Lee SH. Influence of Implant
Abutment Type on Stress Distribution in Bone Under Various
Loading Conditions Using Finite Element Analysis. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:195-202
34. Michalakis KX, Calvani P, Muftu S, Pissiotis A, Hirayama H. The Effect
of Different Implant-Abutment Connections on Screw Joint Stability. J of
Oral Implantology 2014; 40:146-152
35. Norton MR. Multiple single-tooth implant restorations in the
15
posterior jaw: Maintenance of marginal bone levels with reference to
implant-abutment microgap. Int J Oral Maxillfac Implants 2006;
21:777-784
16
ModelNumber of
ImplantsRehabilitation
Number of
elements
Number of
nodes
NS 4 Non-splinted 1053884 205890
SP 4 Splinted 1079456 210057
PT 3 Pontic 845361 165557
CT 2 Cantilever 652196 127181
TABLES
Table 1. Description of models.
17
Component Elastic modulus (GPa) Poisson ratio
Cortical bone 13.7 0.3
Cancellous bone 1.37 0.3
Tooth dentin 41 0.3
Periodontal ligament 3x10-5 0.45
Titanium alloy 102 0.3
Gold alloy 100 0.3
Table 2. Material Properties used in the study.25,26
18
Model NS SP PT CT
Cortical bone 151.0 182.3 146.9 112.2
Cancellous bone 36.8 31.9 43.7 33.1
Implant 577.7 616.8 649.3 791.6
Abutment 860.9 861.0 860.9 861.8
Screw 862.3 862.4 862.3 862.0
Crown 298.4 297.7 305.4 220.0
Table 3. The maximum von Mises stress vales (MPa) in each
component of the models.
19
Model NS SP PT CT
Cortical bone 57.7 69.6 68.6 56.6
Cancellous bone 43.3 45.7 48.3 46.6
Implant 47.7 39.2 43.6 35.0
Abutment 71.8 71.8 77.4 67.8
Screw 81.5 128.8 135.2 125.1
Crown 65.2 71.4 68.7 95.7
Table 4. The maximum displacement vales (㎛) in each component of
the models.
20
FIGURES
Fig. 1. Finite element models. A, four implants with non-splinted
crowns (NS); B, four implants with splinted crowns (SP); C, three
implants with pontic (PT); and D, two implants with cantilever (CT).
A B
C D
21
Fig. 2. The applied force of finite element models. A, Mesial view,
oblique loading at angle of θ=11.3 degrees from implant axis B,
Occlusal view, illustrating the location of the applied force of total
300 N (50 N on premolars and 100 N on molars respectively, load
was distributed to the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the crowns)
A B
22
Fig. 3. Overall stress concentrations of the models in MPa. A, model
NS; B, model SP; C, model PT and D, model CT
A B
C D
23
Fig. 4. Maximum displacement of the models in ㎛. A, model NS; B,
model SP; C, model PT and D, model CT
A B
C D
24
국문초록
하악 구치부에서 임플란트 개수와 다양한
보철디자인이 임플란트-지지고정성보철물의
생역학적 거동에 미치는 영향:
삼차원 유한요소연구
서울대학교 대학원 치의과학과 치과보철학전공
(지도교수 권 호 범)
정 원 경
1. 목 적
이 연구의 목적은 하악 구치부 부분 무치악 모형에서 다양한 디자인과
임플란트 개수를 가진 임플란트-지지 고정성 보철물을 생역학적으로 분
석 하는 것이다.
2. 방 법
하악 구치부 부분 무치악인 하악골, 잔존치아, 임플란트 시스템 그리고
상부 보철물로 이루어진 유한요소 모형을 유한요소 제작 프로그램
(Visual-Mesh, ESI group)을 이용하여 제작하였다. 하악골과 치아는 환
자의 CT 데이터를 기반으로 제작되었으며 임플란트 시스템은 제조회사
로부터 제공되었다 (Osstem US system; Osstem Implant Co.). 각기 다
른 임플란트 개수와 디자인을 가진 네 개의 모형은 다음과 같다: 제1소
구치부터 제2대구치까지 하악 구치부 네개의 상실치아에 모두 임플란트
를 식립하여, 총 네 개의 임플란트와 함께 연결 고정 되지 않은 단일 보
철물 (NS); 네 개의 임플란트와 서로 연결 고정 되어있는 보철물 (SP);
제1소구치, 제2소구치 그리고 제2대구치에 총 세 개의 임플란트와 가공
치(pontic)를 포함한 보철물 (PT); 제1소구치와 제1대구치에 총 두 개의
임플란트와 캔틸레버를 포함한 보철물 (CT). 골- 임플란트의 계면은 고
정 된 것으로 설정하였고, 임플란트와 임플란트 시스템의 구조물 사이의
계면에는 마찰계수 0.3의 경계조건을 설정하였다. 임플란트 나사에 825N
의 전하중을 가한 후, 11.3˚의 각도로 총 300 N 경사하중을 보철물의 교
합면에 가하였다. 그리고 관찰 된 각각의 구조물들의 최대등가응력
(Max. von Mises stress)의 분포와 변위를 비교분석 하였다.
3. 결 과
임플란트에서는 임플란트의 식립 개수가 적은 모델일수록 응력이 증가하
는 것을 보여주었으며 캔틸레버 모델에서의 응력 값이 가장 높았다. 반
면에 골이나 금관과 같은 구조물에서는 오히려 캔틸레버 모델이 각각
112.2 와 220 MPa로 다른 모델들보다 더 적은 응력 값을 보여주었다.
피질골과 임플란트에서는 연결 고정되지 않은 단일 보철물의 응력이 각
각 151 과 577.7 MPa로, 182.3 과 616.8 MPa인 연결 고정 된 모델보다
적은 응력 값을 나타내었으나 해면골과 금관에서는 반대로 연결 고정 된
보철물이 31.9 와 297.7 MPa 로, 36.8 과 298.4 MPa인 단일 보철물보다
더 적은 응력 값을 보여주었다.
4. 결 론
임플란트-지지 고정성 보철물의 몇몇 구조물들은 임플란트 개수의 감소
에 따른 더 큰 응력 분포를 의 패턴을 보여주긴 하였지만 골이나 금관과
같은 다른 구조물에서는 임플란트의 개수와 응력 분포 사이에 유의미한
관련성이 보이지 않았다. 따라서 임상에서 각각의 결손 치아에 하나의
임플란트 식립이 어려울 경우에는 가공치(pontic)나 캔틸레버를 포함한
디자인의 보철물 또한 유용한 치료 옵션이 될 수 있다.
………………………………………………………………………………………
주요어 : 임플란트-지지 고정성 보철물, 생역학적 분석, 응력분포,
유한요소법
학 번 : 2016-22041