FE-Analyse zur Knochenbelastung durch Implantatbrücken

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 8 Hecker DM, Eckert SE. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: Changes in component fit over time.  J Prosthet Dent. 2003;  89 346-351
• 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
• 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
• 11 Karl M, Winter W, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM. Spannungsentwicklung 5-gliedriger Implantatbrücken.  ZWR. 2003;  112 499-507
• 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
• 13 Karl M, Rösch S, Linke JJ. et al. . Spannungsentwicklung keramisch verblendeter Implantatbrücken.  ZWR. 2005;  114 68-78
• 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
• 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
• 17 Melsen B, Lang NP. Biological reactions of alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral implants.  Clin Oral Impl Res. 2001;  12 144-152
• 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
• 19 Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant-supported prostheses.  Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;  7 15-18
• 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
• 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
• 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

Korrespondenzadresse