LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 21 , Issue 6
November/December 2006

Pages 879889


Threaded Versus Porous-Surfaced Implants as Anchorage Units for Orthodontic Treatment: Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Peri-implant Bone Tissue Stresses

Robert M. Pilliar, BSc, PhD / Genadijs Sagals, MSc, PhD / Shaker A. Meguid, BSc, MSc, PhD / Rodrigo Oyonarte, DDS, MSc-Ortho / Douglas A. Deporter, DDS, PhD


PMID: 17190297

Purpose: A 3-dimensional finite element model was developed to investigate the cause of different crestal bone loss patterns observed around sintered porous-surfaced and machined (turned) threaded dental implants used for orthodontic anchorage in a previously reported animal study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-noded structural solid elements with parabolic interpolation between nodes were used for modeling the bone-implant interface zone. A 3-N traction force acting between either 2 porous-surfaced or 2 machined threaded implants placed in canine premolar mandibular sites and bone profiles observed at initiation and 22 weeks of orthodontic loading were modeled. Results: Higher maximum stresses in peri-implant bone next to the coronal region of the implants were predicted with the machined threaded implants at both the initial and final time points, with the values 20% greater than those predicted after the 22-week loading period. These values were approximately 200% greater than those predicted for the porous-surfaced implants, for which a more uniform stress distribution was predicted. Discussion: The finite element model results indicated that the observed greater retention of crestal bone next to the porous-surfaced implants was attributable to lower peak stresses developing in crestal peri-implant bone with this design, which decreased the probability of bone loss related to local overstressing and bone microfracture. Conclusion: The predicted lower stresses were a result of the more uniform transfer of force from implant to bone with the porous-surfaced implants, which was a consequence of the interlocking of bone and implant possible with this design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:879889


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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help