Biomechanical comparison of two different collar structured implants supporting 3-unit fixed partial denture: A 3-D FEM study

References

• Christensen GJ. Implant prosthodontics: from single tooth to complex cases. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:244–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cehreli M, Sahin S, Akça K. Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. J Dent 2004;32:123–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geramy A, Morgano SM. Finite element analysis of three designs of an implant-supported molar crown. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:434–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckert SE, Wollan PC. Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:415–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunski JB. Biomechanics of dental implants. In: Block M, Kent JN, Guerra LR, editors. Implants in dentistry. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997. p.63–71.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer HJ, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJ, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:96–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong L, Zhao Y, Hu K, Li D, Zhou H, Wu Z, Selection of the implant thread pitch for optimal biomechanical properties: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Adv Eng Softw 2009;40:474–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson S, Werke M. The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 2003;36:1247–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simşek B, Erkmen E, Yilmaz D, Eser A. Effects of different inter-implant distances on the stress distribution around endosseous implants in posterior mandible: a 3D finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 2006;28:199–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gratton DG, Aquilino SA, Stanford CM. Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental-implant interface. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:47–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geramy A, Sharafoddin F. Abfraction: 3D analysis by means of the finite element method. Quintessence Int 2003;34:526–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, Miyakawa O. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:82–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iplikçioğlu H, Akça K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;30:41–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayabaşi O, Yüzbasıoğlu E, Erzincanli F. Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviours of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Softw 2006;37:649–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfart M, Wolfart S, Kern M. Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:519–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf H, Graseel H, Aeberhard HJ. A method for the measurement of occlusal forces in three directions. Helv Odont Acta 1974;18:7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Nagasao T, Kobayashi M, Tsuchiya Y, Kaneko T, Nakajima T. Finite element analysis of the stresses around fixtures in various reconstructed mandibular models–part II (effect of horizontal load). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31:168–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Akca K, Iplikcioglu H. Evaluation of the effects of the residual bone angulation on implant-supported fixed prosthesis in mandibular posterior edentulism. Part II. 3D finite element stress analysis. Implant Dent 2001;10:238–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ismail YH, Pahountis LN, Fleming JF. Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element analysis of a blade implant. Int J Oral Implantol 1987;4:25–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang JK, Chen ZQ. The study of effects of changes of the elastic modulus of the materials substitute to human hard tissues on the mechanical state in the implant-bone interface by three-dimensional anisotropic finite element analysis. West China J Stomatol 1998;16:274–8.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnet AS, Postaire M, Lipinski P. Biomechanical study of mandible bone supporting a four-implant retained bridge: finite element analysis of the influence of bone anisotropy and foodstuff position. Med Eng Phys 2009;31:806–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson S, Ekestubbe A. Area moments of inertia as a measure of the mandible stiffness of the implant patient. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:450–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansson S. A conical implant-abutment interface at the level of the marginal bone improves the distribution of stresses in the supporting bone. An axisymmetric finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:286–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato Y, Teixeira ER, Shindoi N, Wadomoto M, Akagawa Y. Effect of bone length on stress distribution in implant FEA. J Dent Res 1997;76:328.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: biomechanical study of flat top versus conical. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:33–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frost HM. Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU): 4. Mechanical influences on intact fibrous tissues. Anat Rec 1990;226:433–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reilly DT, Burstein AH. The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomech 1975;8:393–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:394–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:173–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karlsson U, Gotfredsen K, Olsson C. A 2-year report on maxillary and mandibular fixed partial dentures supported by Astra Tech dental implants. A comparison of 2 implants with different surface textures. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:235–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:465–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buser D, Belser UC, Lang NP. The original one-stage dental implant system and its clinical application. Periodontol 1998;2000:106–18.
   Google Scholar
• Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar