Premium
Loading conditions of endosseous implants in an edentulous human mandible: a three‐dimensional, finite‐element study
Author(s) -
MEIJER H.AJ.,
STARMANS F.J.M.,
STEEN W.H.A.,
BOSMAN F.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1996.d01-185.x
Subject(s) - mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , reduction (mathematics) , implant , materials science , deformation (meteorology) , dentistry , stress (linguistics) , finite element method , endosseous implants , orthodontics , bar (unit) , medicine , osseointegration , composite material , geology , geometry , structural engineering , mathematics , surgery , linguistics , philosophy , botany , oceanography , engineering , biology , genus
The design of dental superstructures influences the loading on dental implants and the deformation of the anterior interforaminal bone in an edentulous mandible. This deformation causes stress in the bone around the implants and may lead to bone resorption and loss of the implant. The stress distribution around dental implants in an edentulous mandible was calculated by means of a three‐dimensional, finite‐element model of the anterior part of the jaw. This model was built from data obtained from slices of a single human mandible and was provided with four endosseous implants in the interforaminal region. The implants were either connected with a bar or remained solitary. The solitary implants or the bars were loaded either uniformly or non‐uniformly. In case of a non‐uniform distribution, either the central bar or the central implants were loaded or the lateral bars or the lateral implants were loaded. The most extreme stresses in the bone were always located around the neck of the implant. In the case of the uniform distribution of the loading there were more or less equal extreme principal stresses around the central and lateral implants. If the load was not uniformly distributed on the superstructure then the implant that was nearest to the place of loading showed the highest stress concentration; with connected implants there was a reduction in the magnitude of the extreme principal stresses compared to solitary implants.