Comparison of Screws with Different Diameters in Subperiosteal Implant Application with Finite Element Analysis.

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

International Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-10-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.7150/ijms.93225

Abdulsamet Kundakcioglu, Betul Gedik

{"title":"Comparison of Screws with Different Diameters in Subperiosteal Implant Application with Finite Element Analysis.","authors":"Abdulsamet Kundakcioglu, Betul Gedik","doi":"10.7150/ijms.93225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aimed to assess subperiosteal implants concerning bone stress and screw displacement, utilizing finite element analysis to determine the optimal screw diameter for enhanced bone support. Methods: Computed tomography data were translated into STL format, generating two skull models. Subperiosteal implants were constructed on these models and placed accordingly. Employing the finite element analysis method, screws with 1.5 mm and 2 mm diameter were inserted into one of the models to evaluate their impact under a 250 N chewing force. Results: The 2 mm screw demonstrated superior performance compared to the 1.5 mm variant, showcasing reduced residual stress on the bone and implant. However, the 1.5 mm screw exhibited less implant movement. Conclusion: The finite element analysis suggests the 2 mm screw diameter as more advantageous over the 1.5 mm variant for subperiosteal implants. Nevertheless, this investigation marks the initial stages in exploring this treatment option's potential.","PeriodicalId":14031,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"21 13","pages":"2595-2602"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.93225","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess subperiosteal implants concerning bone stress and screw displacement, utilizing finite element analysis to determine the optimal screw diameter for enhanced bone support. Methods: Computed tomography data were translated into STL format, generating two skull models. Subperiosteal implants were constructed on these models and placed accordingly. Employing the finite element analysis method, screws with 1.5 mm and 2 mm diameter were inserted into one of the models to evaluate their impact under a 250 N chewing force. Results: The 2 mm screw demonstrated superior performance compared to the 1.5 mm variant, showcasing reduced residual stress on the bone and implant. However, the 1.5 mm screw exhibited less implant movement. Conclusion: The finite element analysis suggests the 2 mm screw diameter as more advantageous over the 1.5 mm variant for subperiosteal implants. Nevertheless, this investigation marks the initial stages in exploring this treatment option's potential.

查看原文本刊更多论文

通过有限元分析比较不同直径的螺钉在骨膜下植入物中的应用

目的：本研究旨在评估骨膜下植入物的骨应力和螺钉位移，利用有限元分析确定最佳螺钉直径，以增强骨支持。研究方法将计算机断层扫描数据转化为 STL 格式，生成两个头骨模型。在这些模型上构建骨膜下植入物并进行相应的植入。采用有限元分析方法，将直径分别为 1.5 毫米和 2 毫米的螺钉植入其中一个模型，以评估其在 250 牛咀嚼力作用下的影响。结果显示与 1.5 毫米的螺钉相比，2 毫米的螺钉表现出更优越的性能，减少了骨和种植体上的残余应力。不过，1.5 毫米螺钉的种植体移动较少。结论：有限元分析表明，对于骨膜下种植体而言，2 毫米直径的螺钉比 1.5 毫米直径的螺钉更有优势。不过，这项研究标志着探索这种治疗方案潜力的初步阶段。

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

International Journal of Medical Sciences MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

185

审稿时长

2.7 months

期刊介绍： Original research papers, reviews, and short research communications in any medical related area can be submitted to the Journal on the understanding that the work has not been published previously in whole or part and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Manuscripts in basic science and clinical medicine are both considered. There is no restriction on the length of research papers and reviews, although authors are encouraged to be concise. Short research communication is limited to be under 2500 words.