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
. 2021 Apr:116:104325.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104325. Epub 2021 Jan 13.

Effects of implant buccal distance on peri-implant strain: A Micro-CT based finite element analysis

Kangning Su  1 , Yuxiao Zhou  2 , Mehran Hossaini-Zadeh  3 , Jing Du  4
Affiliations

Effects of implant buccal distance on peri-implant strain: A Micro-CT based finite element analysis

Kangning Su et al. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

Bone-implant mechanics is one of the factors that contribute to implant stability and success. In this work, voxel-based finite element models were built based on the micro-CT images of human cadaveric mandible specimens before and after implant placement. The computed results show high strain at the bone-implant contact locations and the buccal and lingual bone plates. The strain concentration in the thinner buccal plates was more substantial than that in the thicker lingual plates. The average values of maximum principal strain in the buccal and lingual ROIs were in good agreement with those measured using mechanical testing coupled with micro-CT and digital volume correlation. The implant position was then virtually changed in the models to be placed lingually or buccally. The computed strain in the buccal bone decreased when the implant was placed away from the buccal plate. The strain in lingual bone also deceased when the implant was moved from the center of the alveolar socket towards the lingual or buccal plate. The results indicate that the distance from implant to the buccal plate can affect the mechanical stimuli in bone, especially in the buccal plate, which may subsequently affect the bone remodeling process and buccal bone resorption.

Keywords: Bone; Finite element; Implant; Mechanical strain.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests Statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(a) Micro-CT images of a representative bone-implant specimen #1; (b)Voxel-based finite element model of this specimen. Inset image showing the buccal and lingual ROIs. Dimensions of the ROIs: Hight (H) – 5.25 mm, Width (W) – 7.37 mm, Length (L) – 5.5 mm.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Buccal-lingual sections of the finite element models with different relative buccal distance (CB/LB) for implant. B – buccal crest; L- lingual crest; C – center of implant.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Maximum principal strain distribution inside alveolar bone on (a) the buccolingual section and (b) the transverse sections for implant specimen #1 computed by FEM.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Comparison of (a) experimentally measured and (b) FEM computed maximum principal strain distribution on the buccal and lingual bone surfaces around the implant for specimen #1.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Comparison of experimentally measured strain and FEM computed strain in the buccal and lingual ROIs for (a) specimen #1 and (b) specimen #2.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Comparison of maximum principal strain on the buccal and lingual bone surfaces for specimen #1 with different implant positions predicted by FEM. The relative implant buccal distance was (a) 33.8% (b) 48.2% (c) 58.2% and (d) 73.5%, respectively. Implant position in (b) was at the same as that in the experiment.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Average maximum principal strain in the buccal and lingual ROIs predicted by FEM with different implant positions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Basaruddin KS, Takano N, Nakano T, 2015. Stochastic multi-scale prediction on the apparent elastic moduli of trabecular bone considering uncertainties of biological apatite (BAp) crystallite orientation and image-based modelling. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin 18, 162–174. 10.1080/10255842.2013.785537 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brizuela-Velasco A, Pérez-Pevida E, Jiménez-Garrudo A, Gil-Mur FJ, Manero JM, Punset-Fuste M, Chávarri-Prado D, Diéguez-Pereira M, Monticelli F, 2017. Mechanical Characterisation and Biomechanical and Biological Behaviours of Ti-Zr Binary-Alloy Dental Implants. Biomed Res. Int 2017, 1–10. 10.1155/2017/2785863 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brunski JB, 1992. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface. Clin. Mater 10, 153–201. 10.1016/0267-6605(92)90049-Y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen ST, Buser D, 2014. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla--a systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 29 Suppl, 186–215. 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen ST, Buser D, 2009. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 24 Suppl, 186–217. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources