Stress distribution around maxillary implants in anatomic photoelastic models of varying geometry. Part I.

M. Gross, J. Nissan, R. Samuel
{"title":"Stress distribution around maxillary implants in anatomic photoelastic models of varying geometry. Part I.","authors":"M. Gross, J. Nissan, R. Samuel","doi":"10.1067/MPR.2001.115252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"STATEMENT OF PROBLEM\nIt is unclear which implant inclination and position are most favorable in relation to the supporting anatomy and loading direction in the maxilla.\n\n\nPURPOSE\nThis study was designed to examine stress distribution around implants in a 2-dimensional photoelastic anatomic model.\n\n\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\nTwo 2-dimensional photoelastic models were prepared with opposing 8-degree cylinder metal implant and molar teeth analogues. A frontal anatomic sectional plate model based on a CT section at the first molar was symmetrically loaded through its long axis. A midfacial rectangular model based on the same section was loaded in a different direction with varying supporting geometries.\n\n\nRESULTS\nStress distribution around the maxillary implant was highest in the buccal concavity at the apical buccal third and in the lingual concavity on intercuspal loading. No stress concentration occurred at the implant apex under the sinus for axial and nonaxial loading in both anatomic model geometries. On lateral loading, stress concentration was observed at the buccal concavity and at the implant neck. In the midfacial block model, principal stresses were concentrated at the maxillary implant neck on nonaxial loading and at the apex on axial loading.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThis 2-dimensional skull model showed different patterns of stress distribution among the maxillary implant, mandibular implant, and teeth. The highest principal stress concentration was seen at the buccal concavity of the maxillary implant; this may play a role in osseointegration with highly angled implants in the posterior maxilla. Differences in stress distribution between anatomic and nonanatomic models showed how the supporting geometry (for example, sinus/nasal anatomy), boundary conditions, and loading direction influence stress distribution.","PeriodicalId":185384,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of prosthetic dentistry","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of prosthetic dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/MPR.2001.115252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM It is unclear which implant inclination and position are most favorable in relation to the supporting anatomy and loading direction in the maxilla. PURPOSE This study was designed to examine stress distribution around implants in a 2-dimensional photoelastic anatomic model. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two 2-dimensional photoelastic models were prepared with opposing 8-degree cylinder metal implant and molar teeth analogues. A frontal anatomic sectional plate model based on a CT section at the first molar was symmetrically loaded through its long axis. A midfacial rectangular model based on the same section was loaded in a different direction with varying supporting geometries. RESULTS Stress distribution around the maxillary implant was highest in the buccal concavity at the apical buccal third and in the lingual concavity on intercuspal loading. No stress concentration occurred at the implant apex under the sinus for axial and nonaxial loading in both anatomic model geometries. On lateral loading, stress concentration was observed at the buccal concavity and at the implant neck. In the midfacial block model, principal stresses were concentrated at the maxillary implant neck on nonaxial loading and at the apex on axial loading. CONCLUSION This 2-dimensional skull model showed different patterns of stress distribution among the maxillary implant, mandibular implant, and teeth. The highest principal stress concentration was seen at the buccal concavity of the maxillary implant; this may play a role in osseointegration with highly angled implants in the posterior maxilla. Differences in stress distribution between anatomic and nonanatomic models showed how the supporting geometry (for example, sinus/nasal anatomy), boundary conditions, and loading direction influence stress distribution.
不同几何形状解剖光弹模型中上颌种植体周围的应力分布。我一部分。
目前尚不清楚哪个种植体的倾斜度和位置对上颌骨的支撑解剖和负载方向最有利。目的在二维光弹性解剖模型中研究种植体周围的应力分布。材料与方法采用8度圆柱体金属种植体和磨牙类似物制备2个二维光弹性模型。在第一磨牙的CT切片基础上,通过其长轴对称加载正面解剖断层板模型。基于相同截面的中面矩形模型在不同的方向上加载不同的支撑几何形状。结果上颌种植体周围的应力分布在牙尖凹处(牙尖第三位)和牙尖凹处(牙尖间负荷)最大。在两种解剖模型的几何形状中,在轴向和非轴向载荷下,在窦下种植体顶端没有发生应力集中。在侧载时,在种植体颊凹和种植体颈部观察到应力集中。在面中块模型中,非轴向加载时主应力集中在上颌种植体颈部,轴向加载时主应力集中在种植体顶端。结论该二维颅骨模型显示了上颌种植体、下颌种植体和牙齿之间不同的应力分布模式。上颌种植体颊凹处主应力浓度最高;这可能在上颌骨后缘高角度种植体的骨整合中起作用。解剖和非解剖模型之间应力分布的差异显示了支撑几何形状(例如,鼻窦/鼻腔解剖)、边界条件和加载方向如何影响应力分布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信