Journal of Dental Implants
   About JDI | Editorial | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Login 
Users Online: 352  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size

Table of Contents
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 2-8

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of effect of prosthetic materials and short implant biomechanics on D4 bone under immediate loading

Department of Periodontology and Implantology, H.K.E. Society's, S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication24-May-2012

Correspondence Address:
Shrikar R Desai
Department of Periodontiology and Implantology, H.K.E. Society's, S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Gulbarga - 585 105, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.96556

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate the influence of maxillary cortical bone thickness (CBT) and crown prosthesis on stress distribution at bone bone-implant interface in single immediately loaded short and wide wide-diameter implants.
Materials and Methods: A three dimensional finite element model of a maxillary posterior section of bone (Type 4) with CBT of 0.5 mm was used in this study. Dental implant of length 7 mm length and diameter 5 mm diameter was modeled and inserted into maxillary models. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) and acrylics were used for crown prosthesis. A total average occlusal force of 100 N was applied at the central pit of the crown in oblique (15° to the vertical) direction buccolingually.
Results: The micro micro-movements and Von Mises stresses were found to be lower for PFM crown than for acrylic crown on the short implant.
Conclusion: The peri-implant stresses on the cortical bone were reduced for PFM crown. Short and wide implant can be placed in D4 bone quality with thin CBT under immediately loading protocol using PFM crowns.

Keywords: Alveolar bone loss, immediate dental implant loading, maxilla

How to cite this article:
Desai SR, Singh R, Karthikeyan I, Reetika G, Jyothilaxmi. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of effect of prosthetic materials and short implant biomechanics on D4 bone under immediate loading. J Dent Implant 2012;2:2-8

How to cite this URL:
Desai SR, Singh R, Karthikeyan I, Reetika G, Jyothilaxmi. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of effect of prosthetic materials and short implant biomechanics on D4 bone under immediate loading. J Dent Implant [serial online] 2012 [cited 2022 Jan 25];2:2-8. Available from:

   Introduction Top

For replacing the missing teeth, the use of dental implants has now become a widely recognized and practiced treatment modality. The complications related to implant placement and survival are constantly decreasing and the success rate is increasing. The classic two-stage protocol of implant placement is associated with longer treatment time, multiple patient visits, and higher treatment expenses, and the elimination of the healing period offers advantages in terms of cost of treatment and convenience to patients. [1] Thus, immediate loading protocol of dental implants has attracted ever-growing attention in the literature as well as in clinical practice. The main advantage of immediate implant loading is the significantly reduced time interval between implant surgery and prosthetic rehabilitation. The patients do not undergo the emotional and functional stress of being edentulous when they are treated under immediate implant loading protocol. [2],[3]

The finite element method (FEM) has been a useful tool in studying the bone-to-implant interface under mechanical loading. [4] By using finite element analysis (FEA) in immediate as well as delayed loading protocols, it has been found that the highest risk of bone resorption occurs in the neck region of an implant [5],[6],[7] Bone loss usually begins at the crestal area of the cortical bone and can progress toward the apical region, jeopardizing the longevity of the implant and prosthesis. [8] Bone quality and cortical bone thickness (CBT) is are an important factors determining the primary stability of implants. The classification scheme for bone quality proposed by Lekholm and Zarb [9] has since been accepted by clinicians and investigators as standard in evaluating patients for implant placement. In this system, the sites are categorized into 1 to 4 groups on the basis ofbased on the jawbone quality. In Type 1 (D1) bone quality, the entire jaw comprises homogenous compact bone. In Type 2 (D2) bone quality, a thick layer (2 mm) of compact bone surrounds a core of dense trabecular bone. In Type 3 (D3) bone quality, a thin layer (1 mm) of cortical bone surrounds a core of dense trabecular bone of favorable strength. In Type 4 (D4) bone quality, a thin layer (1 mm) of cortical bone surrounds a core of low-density trabecular bone. [10],[11],[12],[13] Jaffin and Berman reported that 55% of all implant failures occurred in D4 bone, with an overall 35% failure. [14]

The thickness of cortical bone also affects bone stresses and strains in implants. Previous studies indicate that thicker cortical bone reduces stress concentrations around implants, [15],[16] especially when it is increased from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm. [17] The connection between osseointegrated implants and the surrounding bone is direct and relatively stiff; therefore, it may be assumed that an impact load applied to the implants will be transferred to the bone directly, causing bone microdamage and then marginal bone loss. [18] Thus, resilient occlusal materials such as acrylic resin [19],[20] have been recommended, especially in patients with inadequate marginal cortical bone, to reduce the impact effects arising from masticatory forces. Ismail et al. [21] analyzed the influence of the occlusal materials (porcelain, precious and non-precious alloy, acrylic or composite resin) on the stress in bone and implant, and they reported similar results for all the investigated materials. In models of single implant-supported prostheses [22] and implant implant-supported complete arch prostheses, [23] occlusal material did not influence bone stress,; but in the model of the implant-supported complete arch prosthesis, it did influence retaining screw stress. [23],[24]

Short and wide-diameter implant has been suggested to restore tooth loss in the posterior region, where the dimension of the alveolus is greater than the diameter of a standard implant (3.75 mm). [25],[26] The jaw anatomy limits the choice of implant length. The available bone height is restricted by the presence of the inferior alveolar nerve and mental foramen in the mandible and the maxillary sinus in the maxilla. [25],[26],[27] The short- and mid-term performance of wide-diameter implants was reviewed by Davarpanah et al. and success rates between 82 and 97.7% were reported. [28] Studies [29],[30],[31],[32] have indicated that the highest failure rates occurred with the use of 7-mm implant, when placed in maxilla and in poor bone quality.

The three-dimensional (3D) FEA is considered an appropriate method for investigation of the stress throughout a 3D structure, and therefore this method was selected for bone and implants' stress evaluation in this study. Till date, there are no reports regarding the influence of different prosthetic materials along with CBT on stress distribution and micro micro-movements of short and wide wide-diameter (7 × 5 mm) implant placed in poor bone quality (D4) in maxilla under immediate loading protocol.

The objective of this study is was to evaluate the micro-movements of implant and stress distribution under the influence of use of different prosthetic materials on peri-implant bone, using immediately loaded short and wide wide-diameter implant (7 × 5mm) by 3D FEA.

   Materials and Methods Top

3D finite element models of maxillary section of bone with a missing first molar tooth were created. The bone was modeled as a cancellous core D4 bone surrounded by a 0.5-mm mm-thick cortical layer in the upper part. An implant of length 7 mm and diameter 5 mm was used for the study. To simulate the maxillary molar tooth, porcelain fused to metal (PFM) and acrylic resin crowns were used. PFM crown had an inner metal framework of 0.4 mm thickness and outer porcelain superstructure of 0.3 mm thickness, with a layer of cement between the two. The crown was assigned the standard dimensions of 10 mm mesiodistally and 11 mm buccolingually. The cervico-occlusal height of the crown was kept as 7.5 mm. [33] All the finite element models were created using a software program named ANSYS WORK BENCH, version 11.

Material properties

All materials used in the models were considered to be isotropic, homogeneous, and linearly elastic. The elastic properties used were taken from the literature [34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41] [Table 1].
Table 1: Material properties

Click here to view

Interface condition

To simulate the interface of an immediately loaded implant, a frictional coefficient of 0.6 [42] was applied at the bone bone-implant interface.

Loading conditions

Loads of 100 N were applied in an oblique direction, i.e. at an angle of 15° to the vertical, and in bucco-palatal direction. The forces were applied at the central pit of the first molar tooth. Implant length, bone model, maxillary molar tooth, mesh, and occlusal force are shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Implant and bone models, Meshmesh, molar tooth, and occlusal force

Click here to view

The parameters analyzed were

  1. total deformation (micro-movement) and
  2. Von Mises stress

   Results Top

The results of total deformation (Micromicro-movement) and Von Mises stress were found to be lower for PFM crown than those for acrylic crown. The values for total deformation were 0.021 and 0.013 mm for acrylic and PFM crowns, respectively [Figure 2]. Von Mises stress values were 108.12 MPa for acrylic crown and 88.22 MPa for PFM crown [Figure 3]. values were tabulated using graphs as shown in [Figure 4].
Figure 2: Total deformation of implant

Click here to view
Figure 3: 0.5 mm cortical Von Mises stresses

Click here to view
Figure 4: Graphs of total deformation, Von Mises stress

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

The present study evaluates the effects of bone quality on 0.5 5-mm CBT and crown prosthesis (acrylic and PFM) on immediately loaded 7 mm × 5 mm implant placed in D4 bone.

FEA, a computer computer-based technique, calculates the behavior of engineering structures and their strength numerically. In the FEM, a structure is broken down into many small simple blocks or elements. A simple set of equations describes the behavior of an individual element relatively. The structure is built fully by joining together these set of elements, so the behavior of the whole structure is described by an extremely large set of equations which are actually the equations describing the behavior of individual elements joined together. The behavior of individual elements is assessed by computer from the solutions. Hence, the stress and deflection of all parts of the structure can be calculated. [43]

The most valid approach for implant placement is using a two two-stage protocol, but recently immediate functional loading has gained importance and comparable results have been obtained in single single-stage surgical procedure. [44] The expected advantageous results for immediate function are good primary stability, controlled loading conditions, and osseoconductive implant surface. [45]

When applying FEA to the dental implants, it is important to consider oblique occlusal force because it representss more realistic occlusal directions and, for a given force, will result in localized stress in cortical bone. [46] A 100 N force which was applied at central fossa, 15° to the vertical in bucco-palatal direction, was used in the present study.

According to Brunski and colleagues, [47],[48],[49],[50] implants can be loaded early or immediately if micro-movements above a threshold of 100 μm can be avoided during the healing phase. Stronger movements would lead to soft tissue ingrowth at the interface rather than to the desired bone apposition. Placing an immediately loaded implant in a thin cortical shell might exacerbate the disproportionate strain distribution in surrounding bone. A thin cortical bone might increase the sliding distance and gap distance between immediately loaded implant and the bone. The resulting enhanced micromotion might promote the ingrowth of a thin fibrous layer at the bone bone-implant interface instead of osseointegration. [46]

In the present study, there was a decrease in the total deformation for PFM crown by 36.13%. All implant displacement values measured in the current study were within the reported acceptable limits of micro-movement, i.e. below 100 μm. This study shows minimal micro-movements for PFM crown than for acrylic crown.

Zarb and Schmitt [51] stated that bone structure is the most important factor in selecting the most favorable treatment outcome in implant dentistry. With the use of 3D FEA, Sevimay et al. [52] investigated the effect of different bone qualities on stress distribution in an implant implant-supported crown. They showed the presence of lower stresses for D1 and D2 bone qualities and increased stresses for D3 and D4 bone qualities because the trabecular bone was weaker and less resistant to deformation. The CBT in dentate and edentulous patients is a critical component of treatment planning in dental implant therapy. Several studies have considered the influence of CBT, [53],[54] , but most of them in delayed loading protocol. In the present study, Von Mises stresses were lower for PFM crown by 18.4%. Thicker cortical bone reduces stress concentrations around the implants; [15],[16] however, increasing the CBT above 2.5 mm had less effect on stress reduction, compared with an increase in CBT from 0.5 to 2.5 mm. These findings indicate that the bone stress and strain do not reduce linearly as CBT increases, with a limited range of CBT (<2.5 mm) being sufficient to provide a superior outcome in terms of decreasing the bone stress and strain around the implants. [17] The above studies did not evaluate the combined role of prostheses and CBT on the peri-implant bone stresses and strains of short implant. The results of the present study partly agree with the above study in having greater reduction of stress with PFM crown compared to acrylic crown in 0.5 5-mm CBT model in D4 bone.

Theoretical assumptions suggest that use of acrylic resin for the occlusal surfaces of a prosthesis would protect the connection between implant and bone. [55] Indeed, damping of the peak force transmitted to implants has been reported by in vitro studies using impact forces on resin resin-veneered superstructures. [56],[57] However, no significant differences were found between in vivo strain-gauge measurements of peak force at the abutment level with ceramic occlusal surfaces versus acrylic resin surfaces. [57] Similarly, no significant differences have been found in the clinical, radiologic, or histometric parameters of the peri-implant tissues (e.g. bone loss) supporting acrylic resin-veneered metal and ceramo-metal fixed prostheses in a dog model. [58] In comparison of the bone stress under static loading with occlusal materials such as acrylic resin, gold alloy, and porcelain, most FEA have shown no difference between the materials for single crowns and only very small differences for fixed prostheses. [23],[59],[60] The study done by Benzing et al. [61] showed that high-rigidity prostheses should be recommended because alloys with low elastic moduli used for the superstructure are predicted to demonstrate larger stresses at the bone-implant interface on the loading side than rigid alloys used for a superstructure with the same geometry. In the present study, PFM crown reduced stresses around the implant as compared to acrylic crown. The study results are in accordance with the above study as low modulus of elasticity (acrylic) transfers larger stress at bone bone-implant interface. A surgeon can encounter D4 bone quality when placing an implant, especially in posterior maxillary region. The present FEA study demonstrates successful placement of short and wide wide-diameter implant in maxilla in poor bone quality (D4) under immediate loading protocol. It was not possible to demonstrate a protective role of resin in comparison to PFM crown for reducing maximum stresses at bone bone-implant interface in poor bone quality. The results of the present study shows that a prosthetic material with higher modulus of elasticity (PFM) transmits less stresses at peri peri-implant bone levels than less rigid materials (acrylic).

One of the limitations of this study is the simplified geometry of the bone model. Even though the strength of a bone block is similar to that of jaw bone, the strain patterns might vary with the bone geometry. In addition, the material properties of the FE maxillary model were assumed to be isotropic and homogenous. The consideration of the anisotropic and inhomogeneous properties is still needed in future studies. Another limitation was the use of a static occlusal force in the FE simulations. Although oblique loading has been suggested to represent a realistic occlusal load, [4] chewing movement, especially with dynamic loading simulations, needs to be considered in future investigations.

   Conclusion Top

This study evaluates the effects of bone quality, CBT of 0.5 mm, and crown prosthesis (acrylic and PFM) on immediately loaded short and wide diameter (7 mm × 5 mm) implant placed in D4 bone. Within the limitations of the 3D FEA study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  1. The implant displacement values for acrylic and PFM crowns were within the acceptable limits of micro-movement, i.e. below 100 μm, and were found to be lower for PFM crown.
  2. Usage of PFM crown might reduce the stresses compared to using acrylic crown around 0.5 mm CBT.
  3. Short and wide implant can be placed in D4 bone quality with thin CBT under immediately loading protocol using PFM crowns.

Further randomized clinical trials are needed to validate the results of FEM study.

   References Top

1.Buchs AU, Levine L, Moy P. Preliminary report of immediately loaded Altiva natural tooth replacement dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:97-106.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Babbush CA, Kent JN, Misiek DJ. Titanium plasma sprayed (TPS) screw implants for the reconstruction of the edentulous mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;44:274-82.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Misch CE. Non-functional immediate teeth in partially edentulous patients: A pilot study of 10 consecutive cases using the Maestro dental implant system. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998;19:25-36.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.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.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.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.  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Clelland NL, Ismail YH, Zaki HS, Pipko D. Threedimensional finite element stress analysis in and around the screw-vent implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:391-398.  Back to cited text no. 6
7.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.  Back to cited text no. 7
8.Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-52.  Back to cited text no. 8
9.Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Tissue-integrated prostheses. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, Editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199-209.  Back to cited text no. 9
10.Misch CE. Density of bone: Effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6:23-31.  Back to cited text no. 10
11.Linkow LI, Rinaldi AW, Weiss WW Jr, Smith GH. Factors influencing long-term implant success. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:64-73.  Back to cited text no. 11
12.Bass SL, Triplett RG. The effects of preoperative resorption and jaw anatomy on implant success. A report of 303 cases. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:193-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
13.Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:33-42.  Back to cited text no. 13
14.Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991;62:2-4.  Back to cited text no. 14
15.Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:104-11.  Back to cited text no. 15
16.Kitagawa T, Tanimoto Y, Nemoto K, Aida M. Influence of cortical bone quality on stress distribution in bone around dental implant. Dent Mater J 2005;24:219-24.  Back to cited text no. 16
17.Chu CM, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, Huang HL. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal placement of dental implants: in vitro and numerical analyses. J Periodontol 2011;82:302-10.  Back to cited text no. 17
18.Brunski JB. Biomaterials and biomechanics in dental implant design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:85-97.  Back to cited text no. 18
19.Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in Osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-48.  Back to cited text no. 19
20.Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410.  Back to cited text no. 20
21.Ismail YH, Kukunas S, Pipko D, Ibiary W. Comparative study of various occlusal materials for implant prosthodontics [abstract]. J Dent Res 1989;68:962.  Back to cited text no. 21
22.Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. Three dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:633-40.  Back to cited text no. 22
23.Sertgöz A. Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:19-27.  Back to cited text no. 23
24.Davis DM, Rimrott R, Zarb GA. Studies on frameworks for osseointegrated prostheses: Part 2. The effect of adding acrylic resin or porcelain to form the occlusal superstructure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:275-280.  Back to cited text no. 24
25.Graves SL, Siddiqui AA, Jansen CE, Beaty KD. Wide diameter implants: Indications, considerations and preliminary results over a two-year period. Aust Prosthodont J 1994;8:31-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
26.Renouard F, Arnoux JP, Sarment DP. Five mm- diameter implants without a smooth surface collar: report on 98 consecutive placements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:101-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
27.Blatz MB, Strub JR, Glaser R, Gebhart W. Use of wide-diameter and standard diameter implants to replace single molars: two case presentations. Int J Proshodont 1998;11:356-63.  Back to cited text no. 27
28.Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Kebir M, Etienne D, Tecucianu JF. Wide diameter implants: New concepts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001;21:149-59  Back to cited text no. 28
29.Higuchi KW, Folmer T, Kultje C. Implant survival rates in partially edentulous patients: A 3-year prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:264-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
30.Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U. Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants: A study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6: 142-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
31.Jemt T, Lekholm U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: a 5-year follow- up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:303-11.  Back to cited text no. 31
32.van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I, et al. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partially edentulism: A prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:272-81.  Back to cited text no. 32
33.Ash MM, Nelson SJ. Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology, and occlusion. 8 th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2003. p. 268.  Back to cited text no. 33
34.Cibirka RM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR, Stohler CS. Determining the force absorption quotient for restorative materials used in implant occlusal surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:361-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
35.Richter EJ, Orschall B, Jovanovic SA. Dental implant abutment resembling the two-phase tooth mobility. J Biomech 1990;23:297-306.  Back to cited text no. 35
36.Lewinstein I, Banks-Sills L, Eliasi R. Finite element analysis of a new system (IL) for supporting an implant-retained cantilever prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:355-66.  Back to cited text no. 36
37.Yang HS, Lang LA, Molina A, Felton DA. The effects of dowel design and load direction on dowel-and-core restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:558-67.  Back to cited text no. 37
38.Peyton FA, Craig RG. Current evaluation of plastics in crown and bridge prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13:743-53.  Back to cited text no. 38
39.Nakayama WT, Hall DR, Grenoble DE, Katz JL. Elastic properties of dental resin restorative materials. J Dent Res 1974;53:1121-26.  Back to cited text no. 39
40.Craig RG. Prosthetic application of polymers. In: Craig RG, (editor). Restorative Dental Materials, 9 th Ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1993:502-50.  Back to cited text no. 40
41.O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 2 nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p. 347.  Back to cited text no. 41
42.Grant JA, Bishop NE, Gotzen N, Sprecher C, Honl M, Morlock MM. Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: The implant - bone interface. J Biomech 2007;40:1158-64.  Back to cited text no. 42
43.Pierrisnard L, Hure G, Barquins M, Chappard D. Two dental implants designed for immediate loading: A finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac 2002;17:353-62.  Back to cited text no. 43
44.Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life Table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-72.  Back to cited text no. 44
45.Vanden Bogaerde L, Rangert B, Wendelhag I. Immediate/early function of Branemark System TiUnite implants in fresh extraction sockets in maxillae and posterior mandibles: An 18-month prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7 Suppl 1:S121-30.  Back to cited text no. 45
46.Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis-a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:80-88.  Back to cited text no. 46
47.Brunski JB, Moccia AF Jr, Pollack SR, Korostoff E, Trachtenberg DI. The influence of functional use of endossous dentalimplants on the tissue-implant interface. I. Histological aspects. J Dent Res 1979;58:1953-69.  Back to cited text no. 47
48.Brunski JB. Influence of biomechanical factors at the bone-biomaterial interface. In: Davies JE, editor. The bonebiomaterial interface. Toronto, Canada: Toronto University Press; 1991:391. p. 91-405.  Back to cited text no. 48
49.Brunski JB. Forces on dental implants and interfacial stress transfer. In: Laney WR, Tolman DE, editors. Tissue integration in oral, orthopaedic and maxillofacial reconstruction. Chicago, IL: Quintessence,; 1992:. p.108-24.  Back to cited text no. 49
50.Brunski JB. Avoid pitfalls overloading and micromotions of intraosseous implants. Dent Implantol Update 1993;4:77-81.  Back to cited text no. 50
51.Zarb GA, Schmitt A. Implant prosthodontic treatment options for the edentulous patient. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:661-71.  Back to cited text no. 51
52.Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kilicxarslan 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;93:227-34.  Back to cited text no. 52
53.Akca K, Iplikciogiu H. Finite element stress analysis of the influence of staggered versus straight placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:722-30.  Back to cited text no. 53
54.Ekelund JA, Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Implant treatment in edentulous mandible: A prospective study on Branemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:602-8.  Back to cited text no. 54
55.Skalak R. Aspects of biomechanical considerations. In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, (editors). Tissue- Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p.117-28.  Back to cited text no. 55
56.Gracis SE, Nicholls JI, Chalupnik JD, Yuodelis RA. Shockabsorbing behavior of five restorative materials used on implants. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:282-91.  Back to cited text no. 56
57.Bassit R, Lindstrom H, Rangert B. in vivo registration of force development with ceramic and acrylic resin occlusal materials on implant supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:17-23.  Back to cited text no. 57
58.Hürzeler MB, Quiñones CR, Schüpbach P, Vlassis JM, Strub JR, Caffesse RG. Influence of the suprastructure on the peri-implant tissues in beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995 Sep;6:139-48.  Back to cited text no. 58
59.Stegaroiu R, Kusakari H, Nishiyama S, Miyakawa O. Influence of prosthesis material on stress distribution in bone and implant: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:781-90.  Back to cited text no. 59
60.Wang TM, Leu LJ, Wang JS, Lin LD. Effect of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor- bone quality: A numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:231-37.  Back to cited text no. 60
61.Benzing UR, Gall H, Weber H. Biomechanical aspects of two different implant-prosthetic concepts for edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:188-98.  Back to cited text no. 61


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]

  [Table 1]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Materials and Me...
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1038    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal