ADNAN KILINÇ, MERT ATAOL, NESRİN SARUHAN, MUSTAFA GÜNDOĞDU

Maksilla Posterior Bölgede Vertikal Kemik Miktarının Yetersizliği Durumunda Uygulanan Kısa İmplantların Üzerindeki ve Etrafındaki Kuvvet Dağılımının Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi ile Değerlendirilmesi

Bu çalışmanın amacı; 3 boyutlu sonlu elemanlar analiz yöntemi ileposterior maksiller dişsiz bölgeye uygulanan kısa dental implantların üzerindeve çevresinde oluşan kuvvet dağılımlarının incelenmesidir. Yöntem:Maksiller sinüs pnömatizasyonu bulunan dişsiz posterior alana sahip sağlıklıbir bireyin bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleri temel alınarak bir model oluşturuldu.Ardından 6,5 mm uzunluğunda ve 4 mm çapında vida tipi silindirik implantmodeli oluşturuldu. Vertikal ve oblik kuvvetler simüle edilerek üç boyutlusonlu elemanlar stres analizi yöntemi ile implant üzerinde ve çevre kemiküzerinde oluşan stresler değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Vertikal ve oblik yüklemeesnasında implant üzerinde oluşan streslerin değerlendirilimesi için von Misesstresi sonuçları hem sayısal olarak hem de renklendirilmiş görüntülerolarak kaydedilmiştir. Kortikal kemik ve kansellöz kemik üzerinde belirlenen 4bölge üzerinde oluşan von Mises stres, çekme stresi ve baskı stresi sonuçlarıhem sayısal olarak hem de renklendirilmiş görüntüler olarak değerlendirilmiştir.Buna göre; streslerin kansellöz kemiğe oranla kortikal kemikte yoğunolduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, en yüksek kuvvetlerin implant içerisinde oluştuğuve dayanak-implant birleşimi yakınında, implantın kortikal kemik ile komşulukyaptığı bölge sınırında yoğunlaştığı görülmüştür. Sonuç: Çalışılan tüm modellerdeelde edilen stres değerlerinin yıkıcı sınırlara yaklaşmaması sebebiyle,maksiller posterior dişsiz bölgede kısa implantların kullanımının başarılıolabileceği öngörülmüştür. İmplantlara gelen oblik kuvvetlerin oluşturduğustresin daha yüksek değerlerde olduğu düşünülerek, özellikle kısa implantyerleştirileceği zaman, implantların mümkün olduğunca okluzal kuvvetlereparalel şekilde yerleştirilmesi biyomekanik açıdan önemlidir.

Evaluation of Stress Distribution with Finite Element Analysis on and Around Short Implants in Case of Inadequate Vertical Bone Quantity in Maxilla Posterior Region

The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution on the short implant and surrounding bone that was applied to posterior maxillary edentulous region. Methods: The model was defined according to a computed tomography images of a healthy patient’s posterior edentulous region with maxillary sinus pneumatization. Then, 6.5mm length and 4mm diameter cylindrical titanium implant was modeled. Vertical and oblique forces were simulated and evaluated with three-dimensionally finite element analysis method. Results: For evaluating the stresses on the implant during vertical and oblique loading, von Mises stress results were recorded both numerically and as colored images. Von Mises stress, compressive stress and tensile stress on the four regions determined on cortical bone and cancellous bone were evaluated with numerical and colored images. According to results; stresses were found to be high in the cortical bone compared to the cancellous bone. Also, the highest stress was found on the implant body, and the stress were high at near the abutment-implant junction, region of the implant adjacent to the cortical bone. Conclusion: It is predicted that the use of short implants in maxillary posterior region could be appropriate because the obtained stress values in all models were not high as the destructive limits. Taking into account that the stress on the implants generated by the oblique forces is higher, for especially short implant placement, it is important biomechanically that the implants should be placed as possible as parallel to the occlusal forces.

PDF

___

1. Levi I, Halperin-sternfeld DMDM, Horwitz J, Zigdon- giladi H, Machtei EE. Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus following tooth extraction in the posterior maxilla with and without socket preservation. 2017;(April).
Martuscelli R, Toti P, Sbordone L, Guidetti F, Ramaglia L, Sbordone C. Five-year outcome of bone remodelling around implants in the maxillary sinus: assessment of differences between implants placed in autogenous inlay bone blocks and in ungrafted maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Denmark; 2014 Sep;43(9):1117–26.
Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8(1):328–43.
Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation: Part I: Lateral approach. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35 (SUPPL. 8):216–40.
Ömezli MM, Ertaş Ü. Zigoma İmplantları. j Dent Fac Atatürk Uni [Internet]. 2015;10(Supp.):190–5. Available from: http://e-dergi.atauni.edu.tr/ ataunidfd/ article/ download/5000119489/5000110296
Raja S V. Management of the Posterior Maxilla With Sinus Lift: Review of Techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons; 2009;67 (8):1730–4. Available from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.042
Karthikeyan I, Desai SR, Singh R. Short implants: A systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol. Medknow Publications; 2012;16(3):302.
Maló P, De Araújo Nobre M, Rangert B. Short Implants Placed One-Stage in Maxillae and Mandibles: A Retrospective Clinical Study with 1 to 9 Years of Follow-Up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. Wiley Online Library; 2007;9(1):15–21.
Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar RM, Arenovich T. A Targeted Review of Study Outcomes With Short ( ≤ 7 mm) Endosseous Dental Implants Placed in Partially Edentulous Patients. 2001;75(6):798–804.
Pohl V, Id O, Thoma DS, Id O, Date R, Date R, et al. Short dental implants (6 mm) versus long dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 3-year results from a multi-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial. 2017;0–2.
Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Checchi V, Marchetti C, Pellegrino G, Felice P, et al. Vertical bone augmentation versus 7-mm-long implants in posterior atrophic mandibles . Results of a randomised controlled clinical trial of up to 4 months after loading. 2009;2(1):7– 20.
Morand M, Irinakis T. The Challenge Of Implant Therapy in the Posterior Maxilla: Providing a Rationale for the Use of Short Implants. J Oral Implantol. 2007;33(5):257–66.
Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 –EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. Wiley Online Library; 2015;26(S11):154–69.
Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo Y-C. Application of the finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. Taylor & Francis; 2006;9(4):257–70.
Jain V, Shyagali TR, Kambalyal P, Rajpara Y, Doshi J. Comparison and evaluation of stresses generated by rapid maxillary expansion and the implant- supported rapid maxillary expansion on the craniofacial structures using finite element method of stress analysis. Prog Orthod. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2017;18(1):3.
Fanuscu MI, Vu H V, Poncelet B. Implant Biomechanics in Grafted Sinus: A Finite Element Analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30(2):59–68.
Koca ÖL, Eskitaşcıoğlu G, Üşümez A. Three- dimensional 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;93(1):38–44.
Tepper G, Haas R, Zechner W, Krach W, Watzek G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of implant stability in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. Wiley Online Library; 2002;13(6):657–65.
Zhao L, Ph D, Herman JE, Patel PK. The Structural Implications of a Unilateral Facial Skeletal Cleft : A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Model Approach. 2004;
Özcelik TB, Ersoy E, Yilmaz B. Biomechanical Evaluation of Tooth- and Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses with Various Nonrigid Connector Positions : A Finite Element Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:16–28.
Weinberg LA, Kruger B. A comparison of implant/ prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8(5).
Oh I, Nomura N, Masahashi N, Hanada S. Mechanical properties of porous titanium compacts prepared by powder sintering. Scr Mater. 2003;49 (1):1197– 202.
Nagaraja S, Couse TL, Guldberg RE. Trabecular bone microdamage and microstructural stresses under uniaxial compression. 2005;38:707– 16.
Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating Parameters of Osseointegrated Dental Implants Using Finite element Analysis - A Two-Dimensional Comparative Study Examing the Effects of Implant Diameter, Implant Shape, and Load Direction. J Oral Implantol. 1998;24(2):80–8.
Cinel S, Celik E, Sagirkaya E, Sahin O. Experimental evaluation of stress distribution with narrow diameter implants : A fi nite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent [Internet]. Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry; 2017;1–9. Available from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.024
de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, de Faria Almeida DA, Junior JFS, Lemos CAA, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of the effect of an offset implant configuration in the posterior maxilla with external hexagon implant platform: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent.