Share Page:

Volume 27 , Issue 1
January/February 2012

Implant-Supported First Molar Restorations: Correlation of Finite Element Analysis with Clinical Outcomes

Zeev Ormianer, DMD/Ady Palti, DMD/Burak Demiralp, DDS, PhD/Guillaume Heller, DDS/Israel Lewinstein, DMD/Philippe G. Khayat, DCD, MScD

PMID: 22299100

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the placement of wide-diameter implants on bone stress concentrations and marginal bone loss in the first molar region. Study hypotheses held that increasing implant diameter would decrease peri-implant bone stress levels, but that statistically significant reductions in clinical bone loss would either (1) not be observed for any implant diameter or (2) be observed only for the widest implant diameter. Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D FEA) was used to analyze the relationship between implant diameter and peri-implant bone thickness, cortical bone thickness, occlusal load direction, and percentage of boneto-implant contact on bone stress levels in the first molar region. A retrospective review of patient records was also conducted in three private practices to assess clinical outcomes and bone level changes around one implant design in three diameters (3.7, 4.7, and 6.0 mm) placed in first molar locations. Categorical variable summaries and comparisons of 3D FEA and clinical findings were made using the FREQ procedure, t test procedures (Student t tests, folded F tests, Satterthwaite t tests), and the NONPAR1WAY procedure (Wilcoxon nonparametric test). Results: Cumulative implant success was 98.4% and survival was 98% after a mean of 49.2 months. Although increasing implant diameter always reduced peri-implant stress concentrations in 3D FEA experiments, clinically, only 6.0-mm implants exhibited a statistically significant reduction in bone loss (0 mm) as compared to 3.7-mm and 4.7-mm implants. Conclusion: Only 6.0-mm implants were effective in reducing marginal bone loss in the first molar region. 3D FEA results supported previous clinical findings that maintaining approximately 1.8 mm of buccal plate thickness can help reduce bone stress concentrations and preserve buccal bone height. A history of periodontitis may adversely affect long-term marginal bone stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:e1e12

Key words: bone, dental implant, implant diameter, molar, stress

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2018 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us