Efe Can SİVRİKAYA, Mehmet Sami GÜLER, Muhammed Latif Bekçi

Kanin veya Lateral Diş Bölgesine Yerleştirilen Dental İmplantların Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi ile Karşılaştırılması

Amaç: İmplant destekli hareketli protez hastalarında kanin bölgesi (CR) veya lateral diş bölgesine (SIR) yerleştirilen implantlarda oluşan streslerin sonlu elemanlar analizi ile değerlendirilmesi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kadavra mandibulası ve 4.0 10 mm’lik Ti–6Al–4V implantın 3 boyutlu taraması yapılarak bilgisayar ortamında modellemesi yapıldı. ANSYS 13 programına aktarılan modellerin, implant lokalizasyonu kanin diş veya lateral diş bölgesi olmak üzere her modelde posterior birinci molar bölgesine 100 N veya anterior bölgede barın orta noktasına 60 N uygulanması ile toplam 4 farklı model analizi gerçekleştirildi. İmplantlarda meydana gelen von Mises ve Principal stres değerleri ilgili programda analiz edildi. Bulgular: Von Mises stres analizi değerleri model 1: 2.7 MPa; model 2: 2,21 MPa; model 3: 9 MPa; model 4: 7.3 MPa ve maksimum-minimum Principal stres değerleri model 1: 0.03 MPa, -2.23 MPa; model 2: 0,07 MPa, -2,37 MPa; model 3: 0,013 MPa, -4,59; model 4: 0,016 MPa, -5,18 MPa olarak belirtilmiştir. Sonuç: Sonlu elemanlar analizi çalışması sonucu elde edilen von Mises ve Principal stres değerleri 4 farklı modelde benzer bulunmuştur. Klinik olarak bir önemi yoktur.

Stress Distribution of Dental Implants in Lateral or Canine Areas: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

Objectives: To evaluate stress distribution around dental implants in the areas of the canine region (CR) and the secondincisor region (SIR) of the mandible in implant-supported prostheses by 3-dimensional finite analysis (FEA).Methods: The cadaveric mandible and the Ti-6Al -4V implant with 4.0 diameter 10 mm length were performed in 3-Dscanning and modelled. After transferred to the FEA program (Ansys 13), four variations were analyzed to representdifferences in implant location (i.e., SIR or CR) with two vertical loading forces were applied to the midline (60 N) andposterior line (100 N) of a bar placed between implants. The von Mises and Principal stresses were evaluated by FEA.Results: Von Mises stress analysis values are model 1: 2.7 MPa; model 2: 2.21 MPa; model 3: 9 MPa; model 4: 7.3MPa and maximum-minimum Principal stress values are model 1: 0.03 MPa, -2.23 MPa; model 2: 0.07 MPa, -2.37MPa; model 3: 0.013 MPa, -4.59; model 4: 0.016 MPa, -5.18 MPa.Conclusion: Von Mises and Principal stress values obtained as a result of finite element analysis were found similar in4 different models. There is no difference in clinically

PDF

___

1. Topkaya T, Solmaz MY, The effect of implant number and position on the stress behavior of mandibular implant retained overdentures: A threedimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 2015;10:2102-2109.
2. Bacchi A, Consani RL, Mesquita MF, et al., Stress distribution in fixed-partial prosthesis and periimplant bone tissue with different framework materials and vertical misfit levels: a threedimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Sci. 2013;3:239-244.
3. Passia N, Brezavscek M, Fritzer E, et al., Single dental implant retained mandibular complete dentures--influence of the loading protocol: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;186.
4. Gehrke SA, Frugis VL, Shibli JA, et al., Influence of Implant Design (Cylindrical and Conical) in the Load Transfer Surrounding Long (13mm) and Short (7mm) Length Implants: A Photoelastic Analysis. Open Dent J. 2016;522-530.
5. Ciftci Y, Canay S, The effect of veneering materials on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;4:571-582.
6. Kan B, Coskunses FM, Mutlu I, et al., Effects of inter-implant distance and implant length on the response to frontal traumatic force of two anterior implants in an atrophic mandible: three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;7:908-913.
7. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Bosman F, et al., A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehab 1993;2:147-157.
8. Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, et al., Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Max Impl. 1998;1:82-90.
9. Ayranci F SE, Omezli M, Is bone density or implant design more important in implant stress formation in patients with bruxism. Biotechnol Biotec Eq. 2017;6:1221-1225.
10. Simsek B, Erkmen E, Yilmaz D, et al., Effects of different inter-implant distances on the stress distribution around endosseous implants in posterior mandible: a 3D finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys. 2006;3:199-213.
11. Tabatabaian F, Saboury A, Sobhani ZS, et al., The effect of inter-implant distance on retention and resistance to dislodging forces for mandibular implant-tissue-supported overdentures. J Dent (Tehran). 2014;5:506-515.
12. Bolukbasi N, Yeniyol S, Number and localization of the implants for the fixed prosthetic reconstructions: on the strain in the anterior maxillary region. Med Eng Phys. 2015;4:431-445.
13. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Bosman F, et al., A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil. 1993;2:147-157.
14. Lum LB, A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol. 1991;2:126-131.
15. Koca OL, Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Threedimensional finite-element analysis of functional stresses in different bone locations produced by implants placed in the maxillary posterior region of the sinus floor. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;1:38-44.
16. Arat Bilhan S, Baykasoglu C, Bilhan H, et al., Effect of attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular overdentures on stress distribution: a computed tomography-based 3D finite element analysis. J Biomech 2015;1:130-137.
17. Chen J, Ahmad R, Suenaga H, et al., A comparative study on complete and implant retained denture treatments: a biomechanics perspective. J Biomech. 2015;3:512-519.
18. Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Slagter AP, van’t Hof MA, et al., Bite forces with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res. 1998;10:1832-1839.
19. Ahmad R, Abu-Hassan MI, Li Q, et al., Three dimensional quantification of mandibular bone remodeling using standard tessellation language registration based superimposition. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;11:1273-1279.
20. Schileo E, Taddei F, Cristofolini L, et al., Subjectspecific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro. J Biomech. 2008;2:356-367.
21. Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, et al., Toothimplant connection: some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implan Res 2002;3:334-341.
22. Ismail YH, Pahountis LN, Fleming JF, Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element analysis of a blade implant. Int J oral Implantol 1987;2:25-31.
23. van Zyl PP, Grundling NL, Jooste CH, et al., Three-dimensional finite element model of a human mandible incorporating six osseointegrated implants for stress analysis of mandibular cantilever prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;1:51-57.
24. Levine RA, Clem DS, 3rd, Wilson TG, Jr., et al., A multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: preliminary results at 6 or more months of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;2:237-242.
25. Iplikcioglu H, Akca 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;1:41- 46.