不同直径和数目种植体支持修复下颌第一磨牙的有限元分析

目的分析种植体支持修复下颌第一磨牙时,不同直径和数目种植体对种植体骨界面应力分布的影响。方法建立3种不同直径的单种植体和1种双种植体支持修复下颌第一磨牙的模型,运用三维有限元法,分析种植体骨界面应力分布。结果单种植体设计模型,随直径的增大,种植体及周围骨vonMises应力值减小。双种植体设计模型,种植体及周围骨vonMises应力值小于单种植体。结论双种植体和宽直径单种植体支持修复下颌第一磨牙的设计有利于种植体及周围骨应力的分布。     

单个下颌磨牙缺失种植修复体尺寸对骨界面应力分布的影响

目的：分析单个下颌磨牙缺失采用种植修复时，种植体尺寸对骨界面的应力分布的影响。方法：采用三维有限元法，模拟单个种植体及双种植体修复单个缺失下颌第一磨牙的情况，在保证其它因素不变的条件下，分析种植体尺寸(包括种植体长度和直径)对种植体一骨界面应力分布的影响。结果：不论单种植体修复或双种植体修复单个缺失磨牙时，种植体直径变化对种植体一骨界面应力影响较大，斜向载荷时更为明显；而种植体长度对骨界面应力影响较小。结论：建议临床尽量采用直径较大的种植体修复单个缺失下颌磨牙。     

单个下颌磨牙缺失种植修复的三维有限元分析

目的:分析单个下颌磨牙缺失时不同设计的种植修复的种植体-骨界面的应力分布情况。方法:采用三维有限元法。结果:与单个标准直径种植体修复相比,采用单个大直径种植体或双种植体修复单个缺失下颌磨牙均可使种植体-骨界面应力值大大降低;而采用单个大直径种植体修复单个缺失磨牙时骨界面应力值相对较小,以斜向加载时更为明显。结论:建议临床采用单个大直径种植体或双种植体修复单个缺失下颌磨牙。当颌骨颊舌径足够时,以大直径种植体修复为佳。     

双根单冠种植修复下颌第一磨牙的三维有限元分析

目的:探讨分析双根单冠种植修复下颌第一磨牙缺失的种植体在不同聚合度条件下的应力分布。方法:本课题在多参数软件algor/solid平台上,应用CT断层扫描技术得到下颌骨和下颌牙列的大致轮廓进行三维重建,然后建立下颌第一磨牙缺失后植入不同聚合度的双根种植体模型,并完成牙冠的修复。在模拟合向载荷的基础上,比较不同聚合度的双根种植体周围骨组织应力分布状况。结果:种植体颈部及周围骨皮质为应力集中区;对各种不同聚合度的双根种植体应力分析中,10度聚合度的双根种植体应力分布更为科学。结论:通过有限元分析,发现近似下颌第一磨牙天然牙根分叉度的双根种植(5度和10度聚合度)比平行双根种植更优越;本研究所得到的双根单冠种植修复的10度聚合度是最接近下颌第一磨牙平均天然牙根分叉角的。     

AZ91D镁合金种植体三维模型骨界面应力有限元分析

目的：利用三维有限元方法分析AZ91D镁合金种植体和钛合金种植体及周围骨界面的应力分布规律。方法：建立下颌第一磨牙区AZ91D镁合金种植体和钛合金种植体三维有限元模型,根据Von Mises标准计算种植体-骨界面应力水平。结果：不同载荷下,AZ91D镁合金种植体和钛合金种植体模型的种植体-骨界面应力分布基本相同：两模型最大应力均位于种植体第一螺纹及颈部皮质骨处;相同载荷下镁合金种植体模型界面应力值稍高于钛合金模型;皮质骨应力分布相似,松质骨区镁合金模型应力分布更均匀;镁合金种植体在水平载荷50N下最大等效应力值是其屈服强度的98.1%。结论：AZ91D镁合金种植体与钛合金有着极为相似的应力分布,镁合金种植体骨界面应力值稍高但垂直载荷下界面应力分布较均匀且更有利于压应力传导。     

下颌第一磨牙种植修复体的三维实体和有限元模型的建立

目的建立下颌磨牙种植修复体的三维实体和有限元模型,为种植体周围骨的应力分析研究提供模型支持。方法利用CT薄层扫描技术和UG软件的实体建模技术,结合PATRAN有限元分析软件建立不同设计方式种植修复下颌第一磨牙的三维实体和有限元模型。结果快捷、精确地在计算机上建立了单种植体和双种植体方式修复下颌第一磨牙的三维实体和有限元模型,建立的模型可进行准确的力学分析。结论采用CT扫描,辅助UG建模技术,结合Patran软件建立含种植体的牙颌模型,可提高模型的仿真性和建模的高效性。     

种植体植入部位对全下颌种植覆盖义齿应力分布的影响

目的:对不同种植体植入部位的全下颌种植覆盖义齿及支持组织进行力学分析,为优化种植覆盖义齿设计提供依据。方法:应用三维有限元法,对分别采用颏孔前和尖牙、磨牙区植入种植体的全下颌种植覆盖义齿进行应力分析,对比义齿本身和支持组织应力分布的差异。结果:①颏孔前植入的覆盖义齿对斜向载荷的抵抗性差,种植体-骨界面应力峰值为垂直载荷的2.4～9.2倍;垂直及斜向载荷,种植体和基托均有较高的应力集中。②尖牙、磨牙区植入的覆盖义齿,垂直及斜向载荷时均表现了较佳的力学特性,支持组织应力峰值位于骨维持的生理范围内。结论:磨牙区种植体的植入可增强覆盖义齿对侧向力的抵抗能力,降低种植体-骨界面应力峰值,减少机械性并发症的发生。而单纯颏孔前植入设计时,应考虑采用缓冲设计,提高覆盖义齿的远期成功率。     

植入位点不同对颧骨种植义齿种植体周骨应力分布影响的研究

目的探讨植入位点不同时颧骨种植义齿种植体-骨界面的应力分布规律。方法计算机模拟建立上颌后牙区重度萎缩三维有限元模型,分别在第一前磨牙区、第二前磨牙区、第一磨牙区和第二磨牙区模拟颧骨种植义齿修复。进行垂直向、颊向30°和舌向30°加载100 N,统计分析植入位点不同时颧骨种植义齿种植体-骨界面的应力。结果1）第一前磨牙区颧骨种植体颊侧暴露较多,与临床不符。2）上颌后牙区拉应力峰值比较：选择第二磨牙区植入时最大,第二前磨牙区次之,第一磨牙区最小。上颌后牙区压应力峰值比较：选择第二磨牙区植入时最大,第一磨牙区次之,第二前磨牙区最小。颧骨区拉应力及压应力峰值比较：选择第二前磨牙区植入时最大,第一磨牙区次之,第二磨牙区最小。结论选择第一磨牙区颧骨种植义齿修复较好。     

种植体数目与分布对下颌种植覆盖义齿骨组织应力变化的影响

目的：建立下颌种植覆盖义齿三维有限元模型,研究咬合力作用下种植体数目与位置分布对牙槽骨组织应力分布的影响因素。方法：临床采集患者下颌骨及其原有义齿CT数据,使用逆向工程软件建立种植体数目与位置不同的下颌种植覆盖义齿实体模型。通过Abaqus有限元软件分析咬合力作用下种植体数目与位置分布对种植体周围以及下颌后端牙槽骨应力变化的影响。结果：在咬合力作用下,下颌骨Mises应力主要分布在种植体周围骨组织,种植体远中颈部呈现应力集中,下颌后端区域应力较小且分布均匀。随着种植体数目的增加,后端种植体周围骨应力上升,远端牙槽骨应力降低。当牙弓前、后端种植体距离增加时,种植体周围骨应力增大,远端牙槽骨应力降低。结论：采用2植体支持的下颌种植覆盖义齿种植体周围骨吸收风险较小,但远端牙槽嵴骨吸收风险增大。4植体义齿所承受的咬合力主要由植体承担,修复时应注意前后植体的距离和咬合力在义齿上的合理分布。     

倾斜角度对种植体骨界面生物力学影响的三维有限元分析

目的 :分析不同倾斜种植对种植体界面应力、应变及位移分布状况的影响。方法 :在第一磨牙区分别垂直及向舌侧倾斜10°、20°、30°植入种植体 ,建立下颌骨三维有限元模型。模拟咀嚼肌力加载 ,分析在正中咬合情况下种植体骨界面应力、应变及位移分布情况。结果 :随着倾斜角度的增大 ,种植体骨界面应力、应变及位移均增加。倾斜30°种植时 ,种植体骨界面应力显著性增大(P<0.01)。结论 :种植体倾斜角度应小于30°。     

上部结构材料对无牙下颌种植固定修复影响的三维有限元分析

目的通过三维有限元方法探讨上部结构材料对无牙下颌种植固定修复生物力学的影响,为无牙颌修复治疗提供参考。方法构建无牙下颌种植固定修复三维有限元模型,用6种牙科材料(纯钛、钴铬合金、金合金、氧化锆、聚醚醚酮及碳纤维增强聚醚醚酮)分别对种植上部结构进行赋值,得到6种模型,模拟斜向加载,对种植体、周围骨组织及上部结构进行应力分析。结果无论采用何种材料,斜向加载下模型应力均集中于后牙区种植体远中颊侧颈部及周围骨皮质,骨松质受力远小于骨皮质。6种模型种植体及骨皮质的应力由小到大分别为氧化锆、钴铬合金、纯钛、金合金、碳纤维增强聚醚醚酮、聚醚醚酮。聚醚醚酮模型磨牙区种植体及骨皮质von Mises应力最大值分别为44.96和29.13 MPa;氧化锆模型磨牙区种植体及骨皮质的von Mises应力最大值分别为21.29和17.79 MPa。与聚醚醚酮模型相比,氧化锆和金属模型种植体及周围骨皮质的应力值更小,且应力分布更均匀。结论无牙下颌种植固定修复中使用氧化锆和金属等非聚合物材料制作上部结构,更有利于种植体及周围骨组织的应力分散。     

Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There are various stress transfer studies of 2- or 4-implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs. However, the influence of various types of attachments and implant inclination on stress distribution of 3-implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs has not been sufficiently assessed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the load transfer characteristics of 4 attachment systems for 3-implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs for vertically oriented and inclined implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two photoelastic mandibular models were fabricated having 3 screw-type implants (3.7 x 14 mm with 4.8-mm diameter abutment platform) embedded in the interforaminal region. In the first model, the implants were parallel to each other and vertically oriented. In the second model, 1 implant in the midline was vertically oriented, and the other 2 implants were positioned 20 degrees divergent from the center implant. Four retention mechanisms were studied for each model--the Locator, Swissplus ball, Bredent bar, and Bredent bar-ball. The bar design connected the 3 implants, and the bar-ball design used the bar in a similar fashion but additionally incorporated distally placed ball attachments. A vertical force of 135 N was applied unilaterally to the central fossa of the right first molar. The resultant stresses that developed in the supporting structure were monitored photoelastically and recorded photographically. RESULTS: For the splinted and unsplinted 3-implant-retained overdenture designs evaluated, moderate and low level stresses were observed with different attachment systems. For both the vertically oriented and inclined implants, the bar-ball attachment system produced the lowest stress level. CONCLUSIONS: For vertical and inclined implant designs, lowest stress was transferred to all implants with the bar-ball attachment system, while moderate stresses were observed in implants on the loaded side with unsplinted attachment systems. The highest stress level observed with all attachment systems was moderate. For the vertical implant design, the observed stresses were distributed to all implants except with the ball attachment system, which demonstrated little discernible stresses on the non-loaded side implant.     

种植体-基台连接形式对种植体周围骨组织应力分布的影响

目的分析种植体-基台连接形式对种植体周围骨组织应力分布的影响，从生物力学角度探讨平台转换连接形式防止或减少种植体周围骨吸收的可能机制。方法利用COSMOSM2．85软件包建立种植体支持的下颌第一磨牙三维有限元模型，种植体-基台的连接形式分别采用平齐对接（模型A）和平台转换（模型B）。采用垂直和斜向两种形式加载，载荷均为200N，比较两种模型种植体周围骨组织的应力分布情况以及种植体-骨界面颊舌侧相同位置的von Mises应力大小。结果不同加载条件下两种模型种植体周围骨组织应力集中在种植体颈部颊舌侧骨皮质内，斜向加载时最大von Mises应力值高于垂直加载时。模型A和模型B骨组织内最大von Mises应力值在垂直加载时，分别为11．61MPa和7．15MPa，斜向加载时分别为22．07MPa和11．87MPa。距离种植体-基台连接处越远，von Mises应力值越小，骨皮质到骨松质交界处的应力变化最明显。与模型A相比，模型B种植体-骨界面相同节点的最大von Mises应力值较小。结论与平齐对接形式相比，平台转换设计可改善种植体周围骨组织的应力分布，降低种植体颈部骨组织所受的应力。     

The influence of medial implant location in three-unit posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures on stress distribution in surrounding mandibular bone

This study examined the influence of medial implant location in three-unit posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures (FPDs) on stress distribution in mandibular bone surrounding two implants. A three-dimensional finite element model that included three-unit FPD and two cylindrical-type implants (4 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length) osseointegrated in the posterior mandible, was digitized. Five different models were created according to the medial implant location between the missing second premolar and the first molar location. The distal implant was fixed at the missing second molar location. Oblique bite force of 100 N at 30 degrees buccal to the vertical direction was directed on each of three artificial teeth, respectively and simultaneously, while the lower surface of the mandible was fixed. The maximum equivalent stress in the cortical and the trabecular bone generally increased as the medial implant shifted to a distal position. Under the simultaneous bite force, relatively low maximum stresses within the cortical bone: between 55 MPa and 57 MPa, were shown in the models with the medial implant placed within the range of one implant diameter from the most medial position, while higher maximum stresses: between 64 MPa and 73 MPa, were demonstrated with more distally placed medial implants. The results suggest that reasonably low mechanical stress in the surrounding bone may be assured when the medial implant is placed in the range between the missing second premolar position and one implant diameter distal from that location.     

Stress transfer of four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever designs

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The influence of implant number and cantilever design on stress distribution on bone has not been sufficiently assessed for the mandibular overdenture. PURPOSE: The purpose of this simulation study was to measure, photoelastically, the biologic behavior of 2 or 3 implants retaining different designs of cantilevered bar mandibular overdentures and to compare load characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two photoelastic models of a human edentulous mandible were fabricated having 2 or 3 screw-type implants (Nobel Biocare, 3.75 x 10mm) embedded in the parasymphyseal area. Bar frameworks using a 7-mm cantilever were fabricated for both models. A clip-retained and a plunger-retained (SwissLoc) prosthesis were fabricated as superstructures for each framework. Vertical loads of 15 and 30 pounds were applied unilaterally to the first molar and 15 pounds to the first premolar on each of the 4 standardized overdenture prostheses. The cantilever was removed from the 2-implant framework and the clip-retained prosthesis was loaded similarly on the first molar with 25 pounds. Stresses that developed in the supporting structure were monitored photoelastically and recorded photographically. RESULTS: While all 4 prostheses demonstrated low stress transfer to the implants, the plunger-retained prosthesis caused more uniform stress distribution to the ipsilateral terminal abutment compared to the clip-retained prosthesis and provided retention security under tested loads. The plunger-retained prosthesis retained by 2 implants provided better load sharing from the ipsilateral edentulous ridge than the clip-retained prosthesis retained by 3 implants, and lower resultant stresses were seen on the implants. CONCLUSIONS: Under load, all prosthetic designs demonstrated a low stress transfer to the ipsilateral abutment and to the contralateral side of the arch. The plunger-retained prosthesis retained by 2 implants demonstrated a more uniform stress transfer to the ipsilateral terminal abutment than the clip-retained prosthesis retained by 3 implants and provided more retention, given the implant configuration, prosthetic design and arch form.     

Importance of a distal proximal contact on load transfer by implant-supported single adjacent crowns in posterior region of the mandible: a photoelastic study

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the importance of a distal proximal contact on the load transfer to the posterior region of the mandible by non-splinted adjacent implant-supported crowns using photoelastic stress analysis.

Material and Methods

A rectangular model (68x30x15 mm) was made of polymethylmethacrylate resin to simulate half of the mandibular arch. One model was completed with resin replicas representing the first premolar and second molar and with two 3.75 mm dia.x11 mm internal hexagon threaded implants replacing the second premolar and first molar. The other model was manufactured in the same way but without the second molar. Both models were duplicated using photoelastic resin. The roots of the teeth replicas were covered with a layer of polyether impression material to simulate the periodontal ligament. Two different vertical loads were applied to the crowns as follows: 1 - single static point load alternately applied to the crowns replacing the second premolar and first molar (50 N); 2 - simultaneous static point loads applied to both of the crowns replacing the second premolar and first molar (100 N). The resulting isochromatic fringe pattern in the photoelastic model was monitored and photographed.

Results

All loading conditions studied showed that the presence of the second molar has changed the load transmission and the pattern of stresses.

Conclusion

Results showed that the presence of a second molar proximal contact can help minimize the stresses around the implants.     

种植体周围骨内应力分布的三维有限元分析

目的针对不同类型的牙槽骨科学地选用种植体,提高种植体临床疗效,延长使用寿命。方法采用三维有限元分析方法,将圆柱状、螺纹状和台阶状种植体分别植入4类骨质结构中,对此12种情况进行应力分析。结果在同种骨质模型中,圆柱状种植体颈部周围骨内的应力集中最小;就同种形态种植体而言,较低的骨质密度不利于种植体的应力分布。结论圆柱状是一种最有利于降低颈部骨质吸收的形态结构。螺纹状种植体周围骨内应力最大值大于圆柱状,而螺纹自身非力学优势极大的拓展了该型种植体的使用范围,但螺纹尖端处的高应力区域和螺纹之间的低应力区域是影响其长期使用效果的潜在不利因素。台阶状种植体相对较适合骨质好的情况,其根部出现局部高应力区域,若应力处于骨生理承受范围之内,将有利于减少根部骨质疏松。