J Adv Prosthodont.  2019 Jun;11(3):169-178. 10.4047/jap.2019.11.3.169.

Load response of the natural tooth and dental implant: A comparative biomechanics study

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. dackland@unimelb.edu.au
  • 2Melbourne Dental Shool, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

PURPOSE
While dental implants have displayed high success rates, poor mechanical fixation is a common complication, and their biomechanical response to occlusal loading remains poorly understood. This study aimed to develop and validate a computational model of a natural first premolar and a dental implant with matching crown morphology, and quantify their mechanical response to loading at the occlusal surface.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A finite-element model of the stomatognathic system comprising the mandible, first premolar and periodontal ligament (PDL) was developed based on a natural human tooth, and a model of a dental implant of identical occlusal geometry was also created. Occlusal loading was simulated using point forces applied at seven landmarks on each crown. Model predictions were validated using strain gauge measurements acquired during loading of matched physical models of the tooth and implant assemblies.
RESULTS
For the natural tooth, the maximum vonMises stress (6.4 MPa) and maximal principal strains at the mandible (1.8 mε, −1.7 mε) were lower than those observed at the prosthetic tooth (12.5 MPa, 3.2 mε, and −4.4 mε, respectively). As occlusal load was applied more bucally relative to the tooth central axis, stress and strain magnitudes increased.
CONCLUSION
Occlusal loading of the natural tooth results in lower stress-strain magnitudes in the underlying alveolar bone than those associated with a dental implant of matched occlusal anatomy. The PDL may function to mitigate axial and bending stress intensities resulting from off-centered occlusal loads. The findings may be useful in dental implant design, restoration material selection, and surgical planning.

Keyword

Finite element analysis; Biomechanical model; Premolar; Periodontal ligament; Dental occlusion

MeSH Terms

Bicuspid
Crowns
Dental Implants*
Dental Occlusion
Finite Element Analysis
Humans
Mandible
Periodontal Ligament
Stomatognathic System
Tooth*
Dental Implants

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of tooth-loading experiment (A) and the coordinate system employed in modelling and experiments (B). During testing, a flat-ended end-effector indenter applied compressive load to the highest point of the buccal cusp. Two triaxial strain gauges rosettes were positioned on the mandible immediately below the tooth on both the buccal and lingual sides. The mandible was potted in a fixture using dental cement and further secured with two stainless steel screws. For the tooth assembly coordinate system, the x-y plane (dashed red line) was coincident with the four corner points at the base of the mandible. The x-axis pointed laterally in a direction parallel to the centreline of the mandible base, the y-axis pointed anteriorly, and the z-axis was perpendicular to the x- and y-axes and directed toward the highest point on the buccal cusp.

  • Fig. 2 Position of point loads applied to the landmarks on the occlusal surface in finite element model simulations, including the buccal cusp (yellow), cuspal inclination (green), central groove (pink), mesial marginal ridge (black), distal marginal ridge (red), mesial fossa (brown), distal fossa (purple) shown on the lingual side of tooth (A), right view (B) and left view (C).

  • Fig. 3 Force-displacement curves measured experimentally and predicted by the finite element models for the natural and implant tooth assemblies (A), principal strains measured experimentally for the natural tooth on the lingual and buccal sides of the mandible compared to strains calculated using the finite element model (B), and principal strains measured experimentally for the dental implant on the lingual and buccal sides of the mandible compared to strains calculated using the finite element model (C).

  • Fig. 4 Contour plots of von Mises stress distributions predicted for the natural tooth (A) and dental implant (B). Data are given for occlusal loading applied at the mesial fossa, distal fossa, buccal cusp, central groove, cuspal inclination, mesial marginal ridge, and distal marginal ridge.

  • Fig. 5 Maximum von Mises stresses (A), maximum principal strains (B) and minimum principal strains (C) predicted at the mandible for the natural tooth and dental implant assembly. Data are shown for occlusal loading applied at the mesial fossa, distal fossa, buccal cusp, central groove, cuspal inclination, mesial marginal ridge, and distal marginal ridge.

  • Fig. 6 Micro-CT image of natural tooth from a cadaveric specimen (A), 3-dimensional reconstruction of entire rightside of the mandible from micro-CT images (B), and resulting density map for the natural tooth (C) and prosthetic tooth (D).


Reference

1. Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44:377–388. PMID: 25467739.
Article
2. Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(Suppl):308–324. PMID: 24660206.
Article
3. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19:119–130. PMID: 18067597.
Article
4. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998; 106:527–551. PMID: 9527353.
Article
5. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998; 106:721–764. PMID: 9672097.
Article
6. Pye AD, Lockhart DE, Dawson MP, Murray CA, Smith AJ. A review of dental implants and infection. J Hosp Infect. 2009; 72:104–110. PMID: 19329223.
7. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008; 17:5–15. PMID: 18332753.
Article
8. Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Sevimay M, Soykan E, Unsal E. The influence of occlusal loading location on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91:144–150. PMID: 14970760.
Article
9. Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kiliçarslan MA, Eskitascioglu G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93:227–234. PMID: 15775923.
Article
10. Soncini M, Rodriguez y, Pietrabissa R, Quaglini V, Rizzo S, Zaffe D. Experimental procedure for the evaluation of the mechanical properties of the bone surrounding dental implants. Biomaterials. 2002; 23:9–17. PMID: 11762859.
Article
11. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85:585–598. PMID: 11404759.
Article
12. Lin CL, Lin YH, Chang SH. Multi-factorial analysis of variables influencing the bone loss of an implant placed in the maxilla: prediction using FEA and SED bone remodeling algorithm. J Biomech. 2010; 43:644–651. PMID: 19939391.
Article
13. de Las Casas EB, de Almeida AF, Cimini Junior CA, Gomes Pde T, Cornacchia TP, Saffar JM. Determination of tangential and normal components of oral forces. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007; 15:70–76. PMID: 19089104.
14. Du J, Lee JH, Jang AT, Gu A, Hossaini-Zadeh M, Prevost R, Curtis DA, Ho SP. Biomechanics and strain mapping in bone as related to immediately-loaded dental implants. J Biomech. 2015; 48:3486–3494. PMID: 26162549.
Article
15. Chee WW, Mordohai N. Tooth-to-implant connection: a systematic review of the literature and a case report utilizing a new connection design. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12:122–133. PMID: 19220844.
Article
16. Fill TS, Carey JP, Toogood RW, Major PW. Experimentally determined mechanical properties of, and models for, the periodontal ligament: critical review of current literature. J Dent Biomech. 2011; 2011:312980. PMID: 21772924.
17. Melsen B. Biological reaction of alveolar bone to orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69:151–158. PMID: 10227556.
18. Cattaneo PM, Dalstra M, Melsen B. Strains in periodontal ligament and alveolar bone associated with orthodontic tooth movement analyzed by finite element. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2009; 12:120–128. PMID: 19419455.
Article
19. Brunski JB. In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res. 1999; 13:99–119. PMID: 11276755.
Article
20. Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S, Gill HS, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: An in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech. 2006; 39:2457–2467. PMID: 16213507.
Article
21. Morneburg TR, Pröschel PA. In vivo forces on implants influenced by occlusal scheme and food consistency. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:481–486. PMID: 14651231.
22. Stanford CM, Brand RA. Toward an understanding of implant occlusion and strain adaptive bone modeling and remodeling. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81:553–561. PMID: 10220659.
Article
23. Ogawa T, Koyano K, Suetsugu T. The relationship between inclination of the occlusal plane and jaw closing path. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76:576–580. PMID: 8957780.
Article
24. Ogawa T, Koyano K, Suetsugu T. Characteristics of masticatory movement in relation to inclination of occlusal plane. J Oral Rehabil. 1997; 24:652–657. PMID: 9357745.
Article
25. Martos J, Lubian C, Silveira LF, Suita de Castro LA, Ferrer Luque CM. Morphologic analysis of the root apex in human teeth. J Endod. 2010; 36:664–667. PMID: 20307741.
Article
26. Álvarez-Arenal Á, Segura-Mori L, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, DeLlanos-Lanchares H, Sanchez-Lasheras F, Ellacuria-Echevarria J. Stress distribution in the transitional peri-implant bone in a single implant-supported prosthesis with platform-switching under different angulated loads. Odontology. 2017; 105:68–75. PMID: 26943357.
Article
27. Cheng HC, Peng BY, Chen MS, Huang CF, Lin Y, Shen YK. Influence of deformation and stress between bone and implant from various bite forces by numerical simulation analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017:2827953. PMID: 28630862.
Article
28. Weinberg LA. Reduction of implant loading using a modified centric occlusal anatomy. Int J Prosthodont. 1998; 11:55–69. PMID: 9588992.
29. Weinberg LA. Therapeutic biomechanics concepts and clinical procedures to reduce implant loading. Part I. J Oral Implantol. 2001; 27:293–301. PMID: 12498437.
Article
30. Katona TR, Eckert GJ. The mechanics of dental occlusion and disclusion. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2017; 50:84–91.
Article
31. Sheridan RA, Decker AM, Plonka AB, Wang HL. The role of occlusion in implant therapy: A comprehensive updated review. Implant Dent. 2016; 25:829–838. PMID: 27749518.
32. Abichandani SJ, Bhojaraju N, Guttal S, Srilakshmi J. Implant protected occlusion: A comprehensive review. Eur J Prosthodont. 2013; 1:29–36.
Article
33. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:26–35. PMID: 15642028.
Article
34. Lo J, Abduo J, Palamara J. Effect of different lateral occlusion schemes on peri-implant strain: A laboratory study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:45–51. PMID: 28243391.
Article
35. Taylor TD, Belser U, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic considerations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11(Suppl 1):101–107. PMID: 11168260.
Article
36. Chen YY, Kuan CL, Wang YB. Implant occlusion: biomechanical considerations for implant-supported prostheses. J Dent Sci. 2008; 3:65–74.
37. Rungsiyakull P, Rungsiyakull C, Appleyard R, Li Q, Swain M, Klineberg I. Loading of a single implant in simulated bone. Int J Prosthodont. 2011; 24:140–143. PMID: 21479281.
38. Koyano K, Esaki D. Occlusion on oral implants: current clinical guidelines. J Oral Rehabil. 2015; 42:153–161. PMID: 25284468.
Article
39. Röhrle O, Saini H, Lee PVS, Ackland DC. A novel computational method to determine subject-specific bite force and occlusal loading during mastication. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2018; 21:453–460. PMID: 30010417.
Article
40. Giesen EB, Ding M, Dalstra M, Van Eijden TM. Mechanical properties of cancellous bone in the human mandibular condyle are anisotropic. J Biomech. 2001; 34:799–803. PMID: 11470118.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JAP
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr