Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Stress Distribution Around Single Short Dental Implants: A Finite Element Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Abstract

Bone height restrictions are more common in the posterior regions of the mandible, because of either bone resorption resulting from tooth loss or even anatomic limitations, such as the position of the inferior alveolar nerve. In situations where adequate bone height is not available in the posterior mandible region, smaller lengths of implants may have to be used but it has been reported that the use of long implants (length ≥10 mm) is a positive factor in osseointegration and authors have reported failures with short implants. Hence knowledge about the stress generated on the bone with different lengths of implants needs scientific evaluation. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the influence of different lengths of implants on stress upon bone in mandibular posterior area. A 3 D finite element model was made of the posterior mandible using the details from a CT scan, using computer software (ANSYS 12). Four simulated implants with lengths 6 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm and 13 mm were placed in the centre of the bone. A static vertical force of 250 N and a static horizontal force of 100 N were applied. The stress generated in the cortical and cancellous bone around the implant were recorded and evaluated with the help of ANSYS. In this study, Von Mises stress on a 6 mm implant under a static vertical load of 250 N appeared to be almost in the same range of 8 and 10 mm implant which were more as compared to 13 mm implant. Von Mises stress on a 6mm implant under a static horizontal load of 100 N appeared to be less when compared to 8, 10 and 13 mm implants. From the results obtained it may be inferred that under static horizontal loading conditions, shorter implants receive lesser load and thus may tend to transfer more stresses to the surrounding bone. While under static vertical loading the shorter implants bear more loads and comparatively transmit lesser load to the surrounding bone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA (1996) Three dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 76:633–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang SH, Lin CL, Chang WJ, Kuo YC (2007) Factorial analysis of variables influencing mechanical characteristics of a single tooth implant placed in the maxilla using finite element analysis and the statistics based Taguchi method. Eur J Oral Sci 115:408–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H (2003) Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/ strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:357–368

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR (2001) Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of literature. J Prosthet Dent 85:585–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G (2008) 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 Prosthetic Dent 100(6):422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li T, Kong L, Wang Y, Hu K, Song L, Liu B, Li D, Shao J, Ding Y (2009) Selection of optimal dental implant diameter and length in type IV bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 38(10):1077–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Norton MR, Gamble C (2001) Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Imp Res 12:79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Katranji A, Misch K, Wang HL (2007) Cortical bone thickness in dentate and edentulous human cadavers. J Periodontol 78:874–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Zyl Paul P, Grundling NL, Jooste CH, Terblanche E (1995) Three dimensional finite element model of a human mandible incorporating six osseointegrated implants for stress analysis of mandibular cantilever prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 10:51–57

    Google Scholar 

  10. Meijer HJA, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJM, Bosman F (1992) Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 68:96–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsu ML, Ching Chen F, Kao HC, Kung Cheng C (2000) Influence of off axis loading of an anterior maxillary implant. A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:819–823

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ding X, Liao SH, Zhu XH, Zhang XH, Zhang L (2009) Effect of diameter and length on stress distribution of the alveolar crest around immediate loading implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 11(4):279–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F (1998) Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis–a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. J Oral Implantol 24(2):80–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chun H.J et al (2002) Evaluation of design parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis. J Oral Rehab 29:565–574

  15. Starr NL (2001) The distal extension case: an alternative restorative design for implant prosthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 21(1):61–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sylvan F, Nicolas B, Dietmar W, Sean SK, Rene´e MS (2004) Five- year survival distribution of short- length (10 mm or less) machined surface or Osteotite implants. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 6(1):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lum LB (1991) A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 17:126–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoon LJ, Frias V, Woo LK, Wright RF (2005) Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 94:377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Akca K, Iplikcioglu H (2002) Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three unit fixed prosthesis on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 30:41–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Geramy A, Morgano SM (2004) Finite element analysis of three designs of an implant supported molar crown. J Prosthet Dent 92:434–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O’ Mahony AM, Williams JL, Spencer P (2001) Anisotropic elasticity of cortical and cancellous bone in the posterior mandible increases periimplant stress and strain under oblique loading. Cin Oral Imp Res 12:648–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kong L, Li T, Wu J, Hu K, Liu Y, Zhou H, Liu B (2009) Biomechanical optimization of implant diameter and length for immediate loading: a nonlinear finite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 22:607–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Georgiopoulos B, Kalioras K, Provatidis C, Manda M, Koidis P (2007) The effects of implant length and diameter prior to and after osseointegration: a 2-D finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 33(5):243–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Vidya Bhat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vidya Bhat, S., Premkumar, P. & Kamalakanth Shenoy, K. Stress Distribution Around Single Short Dental Implants: A Finite Element Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 14 (Suppl 1), 161–167 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-014-0390-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-014-0390-y

Keywords

Navigation