Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov;17(6):777-83.
doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.124504.

3D finite element analysis of immediate loading of single wide versus double implants for replacing mandibular molar

Shrikar R Desai  1 , I Karthikeyan  2 , Reetika Gaddale  3
Affiliations

3D finite element analysis of immediate loading of single wide versus double implants for replacing mandibular molar

Shrikar R Desai et al. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this finite element study was to compare the stresses, strains, and displacements of double versus single implant in immediate loading for replacing mandibular molar.

Materials and methods: Two 3D FEM (finite element method) models were made to simulate implant designs. The first model used 5-mm-wide diameter implant to support a single molar crown. The second model used 3.75-3.75 double implant design. Anisotropic properties were assigned to bone model. Each model was analyzed with single force magnitude (100 N) in vertical axis.

Results: This FEM study suggested that micromotion can be controlled better for double implants compared to single wide-diameter implants. The Von Mises stress for double implant showed 74.44% stress reduction compared to that of 5-mm implant. The Von Mises elastic strain was reduced by 61% for double implant compared to 5-mm implant.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, when the mesiodistal space for artificial tooth is more than 12.5 mm, under immediate loading, the double implant support should be considered.

Keywords: Dentistry; finite element analysis; stress analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a-d) Implant dimensions, crown dimensions, bone block, and loading condition, respectively
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total deformation of double implants
Figure 3
Figure 3
Total deformation of 5-mm implant
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sliding distance of double implants
Figure 5
Figure 5
Sliding distance of 5-mm implant
Figure 6
Figure 6
Figures 6: (a and b) Minimum principal stress of 5-mm and double implants
Figure 7
Figure 7
(a and b) Maximum principal stress of 5-mm and double implants
Figure 8
Figure 8
Von Mises strains of double implants
Figure 9
Figure 9
Von Mises strains of 5-mm implant
Figure 10
Figure 10
Von Mises stresses of double implants
Figure 11
Figure 11
Von Mises stresses of 5-mm implant
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63:451–7. - PubMed
    1. Haas R, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Mailath G, Watzek G. Branemark single tooth implants: A preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73:274–9. - PubMed
    1. Aparicio C, Orozco P. Use of 5-mm diameter implants: Periotest values related to a clinical and radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998;9:398–406. - PubMed
    1. Seong WJ, Korioth TW, Hodges JS. Experimentally induced abutment strains in three types of single-molar implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:318–26. - PubMed
    1. Balshi TJ, Hernandez RE, Pryszlak MC, Rangert B. A comparative study of one implant versus two replacing a single molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:372–8. - PubMed