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
. 2019 Oct 21;12(20):3444.
doi: 10.3390/ma12203444.

New Dental Implant with 3D Shock Absorbers and Tooth-Like Mobility-Prototype Development, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), and Mechanical Testing

Avram Manea  1 , Grigore Baciut  2 , Mihaela Baciut  3 , Dumitru Pop  4 , Dan Sorin Comsa  5 , Ovidiu Buiga  6 , Veronica Trombitas  7 , Horatiu Colosi  8 , Ileana Mitre  9 , Roxana Bordea  10 , Marius Manole  11 , Manuela Lenghel  12 , Simion Bran  13 , Florin Onisor  14
Affiliations

New Dental Implant with 3D Shock Absorbers and Tooth-Like Mobility-Prototype Development, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), and Mechanical Testing

Avram Manea et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: Once inserted and osseointegrated, dental implants become ankylosed, which makes them immobile with respect to the alveolar bone. The present paper describes the development of a new and original implant design which replicates the 3D physiological mobility of natural teeth. The first phase of the test followed the resistance of the implant to mechanical stress as well as the behavior of the surrounding bone. Modifications to the design were made after the first set of results. In the second stage, mechanical tests in conjunction with finite element analysis were performed to test the improved implant design.

Methods: In order to test the new concept, 6 titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) implants were produced (milling). The implants were fitted into the dynamic testing device. The initial mobility was measured for each implant as well as their mobility after several test cycles. In the second stage, 10 implants with the modified design were produced. The testing protocol included mechanical testing and finite element analysis.

Results: The initial testing protocol was applied almost entirely successfully. Premature fracturing of some implants and fitting blocks occurred and the testing protocol was readjusted. The issues in the initial test helped design the final testing protocol and the new implants with improved mechanical performance.

Conclusion: The new prototype proved the efficiency of the concept. The initial tests pointed out the need for design improvement and the following tests validated the concept.

Keywords: ISO 14801; biomaterials; dental implant; fatigue test; finite element analysis; titanium.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Initial drawing of the implant concept (SolidWorks): (1) Implant body, (2) cushioning mechanism, (3) abutment, (4) locking pins, (5) implant screw, (6) O-ring (cushioning mechanism).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scheme for mounting of the implant in the testing machine according to ISO 14801. The body of the implant (1) is mounted in a block, (2) bone in our case, with its coronal portion (3) 3 mm above the bone level. It is angled at 30° in order to stimulate less-than-optimal placing of the implant. The force is applied on a hemispherical cap covering the abutment (4) specially designed for this test.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mounting of the bone block containing the implant in the testing machine (INSTRON 8870 [44] at The National Institute of Research and Development in Mechatronics and Measurement Technique, Bucharest, Romania), at a 30° angle, with 3 mm of the coronal portion above the bone. The abutment is covered by a hemispherical cap specially designed for this test.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Points indicating the directions of the Periotest used in this study to examine differences in mobility of the implants in various stages of testing. The 270° angle could not be used for measurements because of the arm of the testing machine.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The entire batch of implants before testing. Implants numbered 1 to 10 from left to right.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(a) Implant’s 3D model discretization into finite elements; (b) blocking of the outer surface of the implant; (c) adherent contact between the implant’s components; and (d) force vectors.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Implant positioned for the second round of mechanical (dynamic) testing. This protocol eliminated the bone blocks present in the first tests. The implants were fitted directly into the testing machine’s vise.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Commencement of the static test.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Dynamic implant testing (second implant set).
Figure 10
Figure 10
(a) Abutment fracture in P2 implant; (b) fissure of the bone around P1 implant.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Dynamic testing for S1 (red), P2 (green), and P3 (blue). The peaks present in the green and blue line symoblize the removal and then aplication of the test device load cell in order to perform the Periotest measurements.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Statical testing of P1 implant. There is almost a linear relation between the force applied and the displacement. The implant suffered a small fracture at 548 N but it failed entirely only at 612 N. (X axis, displacement mm; Y axis, force, N).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Maximum von Mises stress during static analysis (portion of the abutment corresponding to the neck of the implant).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Maximum von Mises stress during static analysis (portion of the abutment corresponding to the neck of the implant).
Figure 14
Figure 14
Wöhler curves for Grade 5 titanium (left), latex (center), Viton (right).
Figure 15
Figure 15
Life expectancy of tested implant prototype (FEA).
Figure 16
Figure 16
Failure of second tested implant due to test machine-related problems.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Failure of third implant during fatigue testing.
Figure 18
Figure 18
Comparison between FEA and physical fatigue tests.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Misch C.E. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3rd ed. Mosby Elsevier; Maryland Heights, MO, USA: 2008. Rationale for Implants; pp. 3–19.
    1. Boldt J., Knapp W., Proff P., Rottner K., Richter E.-J. Measurement of tooth and implant mobility under physiological loading conditions. Ann. Anat.-Anat. Anz. 2012;194:185–189. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2011.09.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saurabh G., Rubina K. Implant Stability Measure: Critical Review of Various Methods. Dent. Implant. Dentures. 2016;1:1–4. doi: 10.4172/2572-4835.1000110. - DOI
    1. Gulati M., Anand V., Govila V., Jain N., Rastogi P., Bahuguna P., Anand B. Periodontio-integrated implants: A revolutionary concept. Dent. Res. J. (Isfahan) 2014;11:154–162. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Esposito M., Thomsen P., Ericson L.E., Sennerby L., Lekholm U. Histopathologic observations on late oral implant failures. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2000;2:18–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00103.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources