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 Feb 25;21(1):86.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01442-1.

Biomechanical properties of the bone during implant placement

Ádám László Nagy  1 , Zsolt Tóth  2 , Tamás Tarjányi  2 , Nándor Tamás Práger  3 , Zoltán Lajos Baráth  3
Affiliations

Biomechanical properties of the bone during implant placement

Ádám László Nagy et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: In this research the biomechanical properties of a bone model was examined. Porcine ribs are used as experimental model. The objective of this research was to investigate and compare the biomechanical properties of the bone model before and after implant placement.

Methods: The bone samples were divided in three groups, Group 1 where ALL-ON-FOUR protocol was used during pre-drilling and placing the implants, Group 2 where ALL-ON-FOUR protocol was used during pre-drilling, and implants were not placed, and Group 3 consisting of intact bones served as a control group. Static and dynamic loading was applied for examining the model samples. Kruskal-Wallis statistical test and as a post-hoc test Mann-Whitney U test was performed to analyze experimental results.

Results: According to the results of the static loading, there was no significant difference between the implanted and original ribs, however, the toughness values of the bones decreased largely on account of predrilling the bones. The analysis of dynamic fatigue measurements by Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences between the intact and predrilled bones.

Conclusion: The pre-drilled bone was much weaker in both static and dynamic tests than the natural or implanted specimens. According to the results of the dynamic tests and after a certain loading cycle the implanted samples behaved the same way as the control samples, which suggests that implantation have stabilized the skeletal bone structure.

Keywords: Biomechanics; Dental implant(s); Fixed and removable prosthodontics; Implant dentistry/implantology; Jaw biomechanics; Oral and maxillofacial surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Experimental layout. a Supporting platform with point support rollers; b pork rib segment; c pressure head of the mechanical tear / break device with the roller used for point loading. d distance between support points (standard 40 mm). e vector of the force acting on the bone segment
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Measurement results of the static load tests. a Static load diagram of the control group. b Static load diagram of the pre-drilled ribs. c Static load diagram of the implanted ribs
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The occurrence of the maximum static load force values: Blue: control, Orange: Pre-drilled, Yellow: implanted
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Occurrence of various toughness ranges in the study groups. Blue: control, Orange: Pre-drilled, Yellow: implanted
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The force values measured for maximum deformation (2,5 mm) depending on the number of cycles Blue: control, Orange: Pre-drilled, Yellow: implanted
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Clavero J, Lundgren S. Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(3):154–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00197.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999;10(1):1–7. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100101.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuchler U, von Arx T. horizontal ridge augmentation in conjunction with or prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):14–24. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Urban IA, Monje A. Guided bone regeneration in alveolar bone reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019;31(2):331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2019.01.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(Suppl 1):2–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources