Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 1, 2014

Biomechanical finite element analysis of self-tapping implants with different dimensions inserted in two bone qualities

Istabrak Hasan EMAIL logo , Friedhelm Heinemann and Christoph Bourauel

Abstract

Self-tapping dental implants offer the advantage of shortening the surgical insertion time of the implants and improve primary stability in poor bone quality. Using finite element analysis, a series of self-tapping implants with different diameters and lengths have been analysed with respect to their load transfer to the alveolar bone under axial and 45° loading conditions with a total force of 300 N. The implants were inserted in idealised bone beds with cortical thicknesses of 2 and 3 mm. The implants were considered to have osseointegrated condition. A linear decrease of the maximum stresses and strains in the bone around the implants was observed by increasing the diameter of the implants from 3.7 to 5.5 mm regardless of the length of these implants. Lateral loading of the implants caused a critical increase of the stresses and strains in the bone, in particular with the thin cortical layer of 2 mm. The determined biomechanical characteristics of the self-tapping implants showed their applicability in different bone qualities even with extreme reduced length of 7 mm.


Corresponding author: Dr.rer.nat. Istabrak Hasan, Endowed Chair of Oral Technology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms University, Welschnonnenstrasse 17, 53111 Bonn, Germany, Phone: +49 228 2872 2332 2388, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dentaurum Implants Company for their kind cooperation in providing implant geometries for the FE models.

References

[1] Al-Nawas B, Wagner W, Grötz KA. Insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis of dental implant systems in an animal model with loaded implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21: 726–732.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 422–431.10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60259-0Search in Google Scholar

[3] Baumgaertel S. Predrilling of the implant site: is it necessary for orthodontic mini-implants? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 825–829.10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.038Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Çehreli S, Arman-Özçırpıcı A. Primary stability and histomorphometric bone-implant contact of self-drilling and self-tapping orthodontic microimplants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 187–195.10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.07.020Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Chen Y, Kyung HM, Gao L, Yu WJ, Bae EJ, Kim SM. Mechanical properties of self-drilling orthodontic micro-implants with different diameters. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 821–827.10.2319/103009-607.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[6] Chen Y, Lee JW, Cho WH, Kyung HM. Potential of self-drilling orthodontic microimplants under immediate loading. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 496–502.10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.030Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Chen Y, Shin HI, Kyung HM. Biomechanical and histological comparison of self-drilling and self-tapping orthodontic microimplants in dogs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 44–50.10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Deguchi T, Nasu M, Murakami K, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 721.e7–12.10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.026Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Demenko V, Linetskiy I, Nesvit K, Hubalkova H, Nesvit V, Shevchenko A. Importance of diameter-to-length ratio in selecting dental implants: a methodological finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2012; 5: 1–7.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Frost HM. Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 2003, 275: 1081–1101.10.1002/ar.a.10119Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Gedrange T, Bourauel C, Kobel C, Harzer W. Three-dimensional analysis of endosseous palatal implants and bones after vertical, horizontal, and diagonal force application. Eur J Orthod 2003, 25: 109–115.10.1093/ejo/25.2.109Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Heidemann W, Terheyden H, Gerlach KL. Analysis of the osseous/metal interface of drill free screws and self-tapping screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 69–74.10.1054/jcms.2000.0179Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 20–25.10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008Search in Google Scholar

[14] Hoon LJ, Frias V, Woo LK, Wright RF. Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94: 377–381.10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.04.018Search in Google Scholar

[15] Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Bergstrom C, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI. Influence of bicortical or monocortical anchorage on maxillary implant stability: a 15-year retrospective study of Brånemark system implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 103–110.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Khayat PG, Arnal HM, Tourbah BI, Sennerby L. Clinical outcome of dental implants placed with high insertion torques (up to 176 Ncm). Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15: 227–233.10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00351.xSearch in Google Scholar

[17] Kim YS, Lim YJ. Primary stability and self-tapping blades: biomechanical assessment of dental implants in medium-density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1179–1184.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02089.xSearch in Google Scholar

[18] Makoto S, Kenji S, Koichi K. Measurements of mechanical properties of cortical bone using nanoindentation tests. Proc Annu Meet Jpn Soc Orthopaed Biomech 2003; 24: 1–5.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P, Celletti R, Lazzara R. Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 423–432.10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120501.xSearch in Google Scholar

[20] Mischkowski RA, Kneuertz P, Florvaag B, Lazar F, Koebke J, Zoller JE. Biomechanical comparison of four different miniscrew types for skeletal anchorage in the mandibulo-maxillary area. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37: 948–954.10.1016/j.ijom.2008.07.017Search in Google Scholar

[21] Mohammed Ibrahim M, Thulasingam C, Nasser KS, Balaji V, Rajakumar M, Rupkumar P. Evaluation of design parameters of dental implant shape, diameter and length on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011; 11: 165–171.10.1007/s13191-011-0095-4Search in Google Scholar

[22] Olsson M, Friberg B, Nilson H, Kultje C. MkII – a modified self-tapping Brånemark implant: 3-year results of a controlled prospective pilot study. Inter J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 15–21.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Perez MA, Prados-Frutos JC, Bea JA, Doblare M. Stress transfer properties of different commercial dental implants: a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2010; 17: 1–11.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Poumarat G, Squire P. Comparison of mechanical properties of human, bovine bone and a new processed bone xenograft. Biomaterials 1993; 14: 337–340.10.1016/0142-9612(93)90051-3Search in Google Scholar

[25] Rabel A, Köhler SG, Schmidt-Westhausen AM. Clinical study on the primary stability of two dental implant systems with resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Invest 2007; 11: 257–265.10.1007/s00784-007-0115-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2013-10-15
Accepted: 2014-2-3
Published Online: 2014-4-1
Published in Print: 2014-6-1

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 26.1.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bmt-2013-0109/html
Scroll Up Arrow