Home Medicine The influence of implant body and thread design of mini dental implants on the loading of surrounding bone: a finite element analysis
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The influence of implant body and thread design of mini dental implants on the loading of surrounding bone: a finite element analysis

  • Arpad Toth , Istabrak Hasan EMAIL logo , Christoph Bourauel , Torsten Mundt , Reiner Biffar and Friedhelm Heinemann
Published/Copyright: March 30, 2017

Abstract

Mini dental implants (MDI) were once thought of as transitional implants for treatment in selected clinical situations. Their reduced diameter makes them a very attractive option for patients with poor tolerance to maxillary and mandibular prostheses. Using the method of finite element analysis, a series of different designed MDI prototypes have been investigated. The prototypes differed in the geometry of implant body and/or design of implant head. The load transfer of the implant prototypes to the idealised alveolar bone has been regarded and the prototypes have been compared to each other and to a number of standard commercial implants. The prototype models have been virtually placed in the idealised bone with a cortical thickness of 1.5 mm and loaded laterally 30° from the implant's long axis. The condition of immediate loading was assumed for the numerical analyses through defining a contact interface between the implant and bone bed. The numerical analysis in this study showed that the design of the investigated prototype MDI of group 3 (mini-ball head) is the most advantageous design.


Corresponding author: Dr. rer. nat. Dr. med dent. Istabrak Hasan, MSc B.D.S., Endowed Chair of Oral Technology, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Preclinical Education and Materials Science, Dental School, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms University, Welschnonnenstr. 17, 53111 Bonn, Germany, Phone: +49 228 287 22388
Arpad Toth and Istabrak Hasan: These authors claim for equal authorship.

References

[1] Ahn MR, An KM, Choi JH, Sohn DS. Immediate loading with mini dental implants in the fully edentulous mandible. Implant Dent 2004; 13: 367–372.10.1097/01.id.0000148560.65514.3dSearch in Google Scholar

[2] Allum SR, Romalinson RA, Joshi R. The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 553–559.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01395.xSearch in Google Scholar

[3] Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M. The influence of implant diameter and lenght on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 422–431.10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60259-0Search in Google Scholar

[4] Balkin BE, Steflik DE, Naval F. Mini-dental implant insertion with the auto-advance technique for ongoing applications. J Oral Implantol 2001; 27: 32–37.10.1563/1548-1336(2001)027<0032:MIIWTA>2.3.CO;2Search in Google Scholar

[5] Bourauel C, Aitlahrach M, Heinemann F, Hasan I. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implants: extensive study of commercial implants. Biomed Tech 2012; 57: 21–32.10.1515/bmt-2011-0047Search in Google Scholar

[6] Brunski JB. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interinterface: review paper. Clin Mater 1992; 10: 153–201.10.1016/0267-6605(92)90049-YSearch in Google Scholar

[7] Dilek OC, Tezulas E. Treatment of narrow, single tooth edentulous area with mini-dental implants: a clinical report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Athol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103: 22–25.10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.08.029Search in Google Scholar

[8] Frost HM. Bone’s Mechanostat: a 2003 update. Ant Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 2003; 275: 1081–1101.10.1002/ar.a.10119Search in Google Scholar

[9] Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 585–598.10.1067/mpr.2001.115251Search in Google Scholar

[10] Gibney JW. Minimally invasive implant surgery. J Oral Implantol 2001; 27: 73–76.10.1563/1548-1336(2001)027<0073:MIIS>2.3.CO;2Search in Google Scholar

[11] Griffitts TM, Collins CP, Collins PC. Mini dental implants: an adjunct for retention, stability, and comfort for the edentulous patient. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 100: 81–84.10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.06.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Hasan I, Bourauel C, Mundt T, Stark H, Heinemann F. Biomechanics and load resistance of small-diameter and mini dental implants: a review of literature. Biomed Tech 2013: 59: 1–5.10.1515/bmt-2013-0092Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Hasan I, Heinemann F, Aitlahrach M, Bourauel C. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implant. Biomed Tech 2010; 55: 341–350.10.1515/bmt.2010.049Search in Google Scholar

[14] Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 20–25.10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Horiuchi K, Uchid H, Yamamoto K, Sugimura M. Immediate loading of Brånemark system implant following placement in edentulous patients: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 2: 85–92.Search in Google Scholar

[16] ISO 14801. Fatigue test for endosseous dental implants, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-1-2
Accepted: 2016-11-15
Published Online: 2017-3-30
Published in Print: 2017-8-28

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 31.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bmt-2016-0002/html
Scroll to top button