Evaluation of biomechanical and stress distribution of different dental implant designs: primary stability and photoelastic analysis - 22/01/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.irbm.2021.01.003

Juliana Dias Corpa Tardelli, Mariana Lima da Costa Valente, Ana Paula Macedo, Andréa Cândido dos Reis ^{^⁎}
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

^⁎Corresponding author at: Departament of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (USP), Av. do Café, s/n, 14040-904, Ribeirão Preto – SP, Brazil.Departament of Dental Materials and ProsthesisSchool of Dentistry of Ribeirão PretoUniversity of São Paulo (USP)Av. do Café, s/nRibeirão PretoSP14040-904Brazil

Sous presse. Manuscrit accepté. Disponible en ligne depuis le Friday 22 January 2021
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Highlights

•	The high stress concentration, derived from implant can lead to marginal bone loss.
•	The implant body shape, thread diameter, and profile influence stress transfer.
•	Primary stability and photoelastic analysis of stress distribution were evaluated.
•	This work can help the clinicic to select dental implant for different bone condition.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the stress distribution and primary stability of three different designs of dental implants.

Material and Methods

24 implants Neodent® were used ( ): G1 – Alvim CM; G2 – Drive CM; G3 – Facility, submitted to insertion torque (IT) and pullout test, on 20 PCF (0.24 g/cm³) and 40 PCF (0.64 g/cm³) polyurethane blocks. For the stress distribution, by means of photoelasticity, axial and oblique loads (model at 30° inclination) of 100 N were performed, for reading and quantifying the fringe orders. According to the distribution data, a parametric or non-parametric analysis was performed ( ).

Results

The IT was lower in G3 ( ) compared to G1 and G2, in 20 and 40 PCF polyurethanes. In the pullout, no difference ( ) was observed between G1 and G2, in both 20 and 40 PCF polyurethanes. In the comparisons between polyurethanes, higher values ( ) were obtained in the 40 PCF for IT and pullout. In the axial loading, lower stresses were observed in the cervical third and higher stresses in the middle and apical third of the implants. With the oblique inclination of the models, higher stresses were generated in the opposite side of the load, in the cervical third of G1, followed by G3 and G2.

Conclusion

The results allow to affirm that G1 and G2 exhibit high primary stability and satisfactory stress distribution. Although G3 generates stresses comparable to other implants, its indication is limited in low density bones.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.