Download PDF
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2005; 114(12): 560-566
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-923752
Wissenschaft
Implantologie
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

FE-Analyse zur Knochenbelastung durch Implantatbrücken

FE-Analysis on Bone Loading through Implant SuperstructuresM. Karl1 , W. Winter2 , F. Graef3 , M. G. Wichmann1 , S. M. Heckmann1
  • 1Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
  • 2Lehrstuhl für Technische Mechanik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
  • 3Institut für Angewandte Mathematik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 December 2005 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Mit dieser Finite-Element-Studie sollten von Brücken evozierte statische Implantatbelastungen analysiert werden. Mit Dehnungsmessstreifen wurden 4 Gruppen 5-gliedriger Brücken in vivo vermessen. Auf Basis dieser Werte wurden die Belastungssituationen am Implantatlager mittels FE-Modellen simuliert und als Von-Mises-Vergleichsspannung dargestellt. Das Befestigen der Brücken führte zu Spannungen bis zu 30MPa. Ähnliche Werte können bei axialer Implantatbelastung mit 200 N beobachtet werden.

Summary

This finite element investigation ought to analyze static implant loading as evoked by superstructure fixation. Strain gauges were used for in vivo measurements of 4 groups of 5-unit FPDs. Based on the values obtained, bone loading at the implant-bone interface was simulated in FE-models as von Mises equivalent stress. Superstructure fixation caused residual interface stress as high as 30 MPa. Similar stress magnitudes can be observed for axial implant loading of 200 N.

Schlüsselwörter

FE-Analyse - Knochenbelastung - in vivo Dehnungsmessungen - passive fit - verschraubt - zementiert

Key Words

FE-Analysis - Bone Loading - In Vivo Strain Measurements - Passive Fit - Screw Retention - Cement Retention

Literatur

  • 1 Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;  11 216-222
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R. et al. . Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw.  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;  16 1-132
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: Which is better?.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;  14 137-141
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 De Tolla DH, Andreana S, Patra A, Buhite R, Comella B. Role of the finite element model in dental implants.  J Oral Implantol. 2000;  26 77-81
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature.  J Prosthet Dent. 2001;  85 585-598
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T, Coffey JP. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;  10 529-536
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.  J Prosthet Dent. 1997;  77 28-35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hecker DM, Eckert SE. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: Changes in component fit over time.  J Prosthet Dent. 2003;  89 346-351
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Jemt T, Lekholm U, Johansson CB. Bone response to implant-supported frameworks with differing degrees of misfit preload: In vivo study in rabbits.  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;  2 129-137
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit.  J Prosthet Dent. 1999;  81 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Karl M, Winter W, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM. Spannungsentwicklung 5-gliedriger Implantatbrücken.  ZWR. 2003;  112 499-507
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. in vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported five-unit fixed partial dentures.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;  19 30-37
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Karl M, Rösch S, Linke JJ. et al. . Spannungsentwicklung keramisch verblendeter Implantatbrücken.  ZWR. 2005;  114 68-78
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. fixation of five-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures and resulting bone loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants (under review)
  • 15 Keaveny TM, Guo XE, Wachtel EF, McMahon TA, Hayes WC. Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains.  J Biomech. 1994;  27 1127-1136
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit.  J Prosthodont. 2002;  11 30-40
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Melsen B, Lang NP. Biological reactions of alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral implants.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 2001;  12 144-152
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review.  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;  18 719-728
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant-supported prostheses.  Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;  7 15-18
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Natali AN, Pavan PG. A comparative analysis bassed on different strenth criteria for evaluation of risk factor for dental implants.  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2002;  5 127-133
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Van Oosterwyck H, Duyck J, Van der Sloten J. et al. . The influence of bone mechanical properties and implant fixation upon bone loading around oral implants.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 1998;  9 407-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL. Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: A review of the literature.  Int J Prosthodont. 1999;  12 167-178
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Korrespondenzadresse

PD Dr. Dr. S.M. Heckmann

Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik

Glückstr. 11

91054 Erlangen

Email: siegfried.heckmann@rzmail.uni-erlangen.de