Is bone density or implant design more important in implant stress formation in patients with bruxism?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Von Mises values in cylindrical implants: vertical (a) and oblique (b) loading on D1 bone density; vertical (c) and oblique (d) loading on D4 bone density.

Figure 2. Von Mises values in conical implants: vertical (a) and oblique (b) loading on D1 bone density; vertical (c) and oblique (d) loading on D4 bone density.

Figure 3. Models of dental implants and mandible used in FEA: conical implant (a); cylindrical implant (b); mandible (c).

Table 1. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the materials used in FEA [12,13].

Material	Young's modulus (GPa)	Poisson's ratio
Titanium	103.4	0.35
Cortical bone	13.7	0.30
Cancellous bone	1.37	0.30

Figure 4. Von Mises values in conical implants. Vertical loading (a); oblique loading (b).

Table 2. Maximum von Mises stress values in the models.

Loading	Bone density	Cylindrical implant	Conical implant
Vertical	D1	157.84 N/mm^2	132.24 N/mm^2
	D4	289.16 N/mm^2	304.52 N/mm^2
Oblique	D1	887.68 N/mm^2	828.76 N/mm^2
	D4	909.04 N/mm^2	854.52 N/mm^2

Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Bosman F, et al. A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil. 1993;20(2):147–157.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lum LB. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol. 1991;17(2):126–131.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar