• No results found

Aim and objectives

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Aim and objectives "

Copied!
88
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

STRAIN AROUND A PLATFORM SWITCHED IMPLANT PLACED IN ANTERIOR MAXILLA-A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Dissertation submitted to

THE TAMIL NADU Dr. M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY In partial fulfillment for the degree of

MASTER OF DENTAL SURGERY

BRANCH – I

PROSTHODONTICS AND CROWN & BRIDGE APRIL – 2017

(2)

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation titled “EFFECT OF STRAIGHT AND

ANGULATED ABUTMENTS ON STRESS AND STRAIN AROUND A PLATFORM SWITCHED IMPLANT PLACED IN ANTERIOR MAXILLA-A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ” by Dr.Naveen kumar.T, post graduate student – MDS (Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge- Branch- I ), of KSR Institute of Dental Science and Research,

Tiruchengode, submitted to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MDS degree examination – April 2017- is a bonafide research work carried out by him under our supervision and guidance.

GUIDED BY

DR.N. VIDYA SANKARI.MDS.

Professor,

Dept. of Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge, KSR Institute of Dental Science and Research,

Tiruchengode – 637 215.

Dr. C. A. MATHEW, M.D.S., Professor & Head of the Department, Dept. of Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge, KSR Institute of Dental Science and Research,

Tiruchengode – 637 215.

Dr. G.S. KUMAR M.D.S., Principal,

KSR Institute of Dental Science and Research,

Tiruchengode – 637 215.

(3)

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

TITLE OF DISSERTATION

Effect of straight and angulated abutments on stress and strain around a platform switched implant placed in anterior maxilla-a finite element analysis.

PLACE OF STUDY K.S.R. Insititute of Dental Science and Research DURATION OF COURSE 3 Years

NAME OF THE GUIDE DR.N. VIDYA SANKARI HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT DR. C.A. MATHEW

I hereby declare that no part of the dissertation will be utilized for gaining financial assistance for research or other promotions without obtaining prior permission of the Principal, K.S.R Institute of Dental Science and Research, Tiruchengode. In addition, I declare that no part of this work will be published either in print or electronic without the guide who has been actively involved in the dissertation. The author has the right to reserve publishing of work solely with prior permission of the Principal, K.S.R Institute of Dental Science and Research, Tiruchengode.

Head of the Department Guide Signature of the Candidate

(4)

I owe my deepest gratitude to God Almighty for all the blessings which he showers upon me throughout my life and career.

I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Thiru. Lion. K. S. Rangasamy, MJF, Founder and Chairman, K.S.R. group of institutions, for giving me an opportunity to undergo post-graduation in this prestigious institution.

I am extremely grateful to Dr. G. S. Kumar., MDS, Principal, KSR Institute of Dental Science and Research for his invaluable guidance and constant support.

“A good teacher is a good mother”. I express my deep gratitude to my guide DR. N.

Vidya Sankari, MDS, Professor, department of prosthodontics. KSRIDSR, for her motherly care. In fact, it was my good fortune to have a person who with sharp and concrete suggestions at all junctures coupled with her tremendous knowledge, guided at all stages of this difficult task. Often when I faced problems, which looked insurmountable, her moral support gave me a lot of confidence without which this study would not have been completed.

It is my privilege to express my regards to DR. C.A. Mathew, MDS, Professor &

HOD, Department of Prosthodontics. KSRIDSR. . He has been a continuous source of inspiration and I am indeed indebted to him for selflessly sparing me his time and knowledge throughout my post graduate course. His encouragement and affectionate guidance will always be remembered.

I also thank Dr S. Suresh Kumar MDS., Dr. J. Muthu Vignesh MDS., and Dr. M Maheshwaran MDS., Dr.Viswanathan.,MDS., and Dr. Raj Kumar MDS., for their relentless encouragement and continuous support throughout the course of my study. I am deeply indebted to them for their most valuable suggestions which were instrumental in completing this dissertation.

(5)

many people to thank for listening to and, at times, having to tolerate me over the past three years. I cannot begin to express my gratitude and appreciation for their friendship. Dr.

Brindha, Dr.Mohammed, Dr.Benny Thomas, Dr.Mithrarajan, Dr.Satheesh, Dr.Uma maheshwari, Dr.Siva kumar, Dr.Yoganath, Dr. Sai Mahendran ,Dr. Kanmani ,Dr. Biju, Dr.Kasthoori and Dr.Shanmugapriya have been unwavering in their personal and professional support during my college hours.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to my friends, Dr.Sriram balagi , Mr.Vinosh kumar and Mr.shiva shanker for their help, advice and support.

I take this opportunity to thank all other faculties, lab technicians and non-teaching staffs of the Department of Prosthodontics for their invaluable assistance and support throughout my post-graduation course.

Parents are next to God, and their silent sacrifices for me can’t be put into words. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my parents, Mr. T.S.THANGAVELU and Mrs.

V.VATSALA and my wife Dr. APARNA NAVEEN KUMAR, without her support I could not achieved this height.

(6)

Contents

(7)

S. No. TITLE PAGE No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 4

3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

4. MATERIALS AND METHODS 15

5. RESULTS 28

6. DISCUSSION 50

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 60

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

(8)

TABLE No. TITLE PAGE No.

1.

(a):Number of elements and nodes

(b) :Material properties used in FEA Study 23

2.

The value of von Mises stress for the models with platform

switched abutments.(units in Mpa) 30

3.

The value of von Mises stress for the models with platform

switched abutments.(units in Mpa). 30

4.

The value of von Mises strain for the models with platform

switched abutment in micro strains (strain × 10 -6 ). 31

5.

The value of von Mises strain for the models with platform

switched abutments in micro strains (strain × 10 -6 ). 31

(9)

GRAPH No. TITLE PAGE No.

1.

Bar diagram showing stress values (in Mpa) with in cortical

bone around the implant 32

2.

Bar diagram showing stress values (in Mpa) with in cancellous

bone around the implant 32

3.

Bar diagram showing strain values (in micro strains)with in

cortical bone around the implants 33

4.

Bar diagram showing strain values (in micro strains) with in

cancellous bone around the implants 33

(10)

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1.

A. Dimension of Implant

24 B. Bone model with implant and platform matched straight

abutment

24

2.

A. PS 0-an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 0°

(3.5 mm) straight abutment .

25

B. PS 15- an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 15° (3.5 mm) angulated abutment .

25 C. PS 20 - an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched

20°(3.5 mm) angulated abutment .

26

D.PS 25 - an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 25°

(3.5 mm) angulated abutment .

26

3.

FEM mesh created by an analyst prior to finding a solution to a problem using FEM software

27

4. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in straight abutment for axial load

34

5. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in straight abutment for off-axis load.

35

(11)

for axial load.

7. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in 15° angled abutment for off-axis load

37

8. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in 20° angled abutment for axial load.

38

9. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in 20° angled abutment for off-axis load

39

10. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in 25° angled abutment for axial load

40

11. A&B

Pictorial representation of stress values in 25° angled abutment for off-axis load

41

12. A&B

Pictorial representation of strain values in straight abutment for axial load.

42

13. A&B

A pictorial representation of strain values in straight abutment for off-axis load.

43

14. A&B

Pictorial representation of strain values in 15° angled abutment for axial load.

44

15. A&B

A pictorial representation of strain values in 15° angled abutment for off-axis load.

45

16. A&B

Pictorial representation of strain values in 20° angled abutment for axial load.

46

(12)

for off-axis load

18. A&B

Pictorial representation of strain values in 25° angled abutment for axial load.

48

19. A&B

Pictorial representation of strain values in 25° angled abutment for off-axis load

49

(13)

Introduction

(14)

Page 1 INTRODUCTION

Dental implants are considered as one of the most successful treatment options for replacing missing teeth after discovery of the osseointegration concept by Branemark in the 1950s1. After the loss of teeth there will be a substantial amount of change in the morphology of alveolar bone. After extraction in the anterior maxillary region there will almost be twice the amount of horizontal bone resorption when compared to the vertical bone resorption2.

This situation can be managed either by surgical management or by placing implants in areas of maximum bone availability. This change in implant angulation can be managed by placing angulated abutments during prosthetic rehabilitation and it is considered as a valid treatment option3,4 .

The success of an implant restoration greatly depends upon the success of the osseo integration. However crestal bone loss is observed after implant placement. Adell et al5 first reported the crestal bone loss by a retrospective 15 year study. A marginal bone loss of 1.5mm is evident from first thread during healing and in the first year after loading was noted from his study. Thereafter an average 0.1mm bone loss was noted annually.

To minimize the marginal bone loss and for better esthetic outcome, platform switched implants were introduced over conventional platform matched implants. In

conventional platform matched implants the abutment diameter is matched with the implant diameter. In platform matched implant both the implant diameter and abutment diameter are the same.

(15)

Page 2 Platform switching concept implies the use of under sized prosthetic platform than the implant platform. The prosthetic platform is shifted inwards from the perimeter of implant platform, thereby creating a step, or angle, between the implant and abutment6.

The implant abutment junction (IAJ) in platform matched implant will be along the implant perimeter, but in platform switched implants the IAJ gets shifted medially from the implant perimeter. The micro gap between the implant and abutment in the IAJ harbors lot of micro organisms which in turn leads to the collection of inflammatory cell infiltrate (ICT) around the IAJ .This ICT leads to bone loss of 1.5mm around IAJ.As the IAJ gets shifted medially in platform switched implants the bone loss will be coronal compared with platform matched implants.

Implant manufacturers have introduced pre angled abutments available from 15°

to 35°.Custom made abutments can also be fabricated according to the individual situations.

Many clinical comparative studies have showed no significant difference in bone loss and survival rates between platform matched straight and angled abutment3,7,8,9.How ever the photo elastic studies and strain gauge measurements 10 and finite element analyses11 revealed that platform matched angled abutment are subjected to more stress. Finite element analysis by Xavier et al12 suggests that there was 15 % more strain in platform matched straight abutments than platform matched angled abutments.

There are only few investigators who compared the straight and angulated abutment conditions with respect to platform switched implant13,14,15.A finite element analysis by martini et al 13 states that implants with platform switched straight abutment generates the highest stress value, but another study shows that platform switched angulated abutments produce more stress on peri-implant bone than the straight abutments14.

(16)

Page 3 So far investigators have included only straight and 15° angled platform switched abutments for their study. They have not included platform switched angled abutments with more than 15°, but in clinical situations we may have to use more the 15° angulated

abutments, for better esthetic outcome. The purpose of the present study is to compare the effect of straight (0°) and abutments of various degree angulation (15°, 20°, 25°) on stress and strain distribution around a platform switched implant using three dimensional finite element analysis.

(17)

Aim and objectives

(18)
(19)

Page 4

AIM

The aim of the present study is to compare the effect of straight (0°) and angulated abutments (15°, 20°, 25°) on stress and strain distribution around a platform switched implant placed in the anterior maxilla using three dimensional finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the present study are

1.To evaluate the von Mises stress and strain values in the cortical and cancellous bone, around platform switched implants with straight abutments (0°) and abutments with various angulations (15°,20°,25°).

2. To compare the von Mises stress and strain values between the cortical and cancellous bone, around the platform switched implants with various angulations (0°,15°,20°,25°).

3.To compare the von Mises stress and strain values in cortical bone and cancellous, around the platform switched implants between various abutment angulations (0°,15°,20°,25°).

4.To compare the von Miss stress and strain values around the implants in all of the above mentioned conditions with 0° on axis load of 178 N along the long axis of abutment and off- axis load of 178 N around 45° to the long axis of abutment.

(20)

Review of literature

(21)

Page 5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Atwood 22 in 1962 explained the physiology behind the resorption of residual alveolar ridges.

Atwood concluded that the rate of resorption of alveolar ridges varied among different

individuals. The factors related to the rate of resorption are divided in to anatomic, metabolic, functional and prosthetic factor.

Adell et al 5 in 1981 studied the osseointegration of implants placed in both edentulous maxilla and mandible. They followed the patients for 15 years and concluded that the mean marginal bone loss after the first year of implant placement was 1.5mm.There after 0.1 mm of bone was lost annually.

Charles A. Babbush ,and Mari Shimura,23 in 1993 evaluated patients who were treated with IMZ system for five years. With statistical and clinical observation, they concluded that larger diameter implants had higher survival rates than small diameter implants. The implants in maxilla had lower survival rate than implants in the mandible.

Nancy L. Clelland, Amos Gilat, Edwin. McGlumphy, William A. Brantley 35 in 1993 conducted a photo elastic study and strain gauge measurements to determine the level of stress and strain for angulated abutments. They concluded that there was a significant increase in stress and strain for each, with increase in abutment angulation. Highest stresses were found in regions closer to the fixture.

(22)

Page 6 Nancy L. Clelland, DMD, MSD, K. Lee, Olivier C. Bimbenet, MS, and William A.

Branthy36 in 1995 studied the effect of abutment angulation on stress and strain around the implant using finite element study. They concluded that there was an increase in magnitude of stress and strain as the abutment angulation increased.

Cany et al 11 in 1996 studied the stress distribution around the vertical and angled implant with finite element study. They concluded that the angled implant showed more stress around the implant in the cervical region.

George Papavasiliou, Phophi Kamposiora,Stephen C. Bayne, and David A. Felton 31 in 1996 did finite element analysis on stress distribution around single tooth implants and concluded that there were no differences between types of veneering materials and the absence of cortical bone increased the inter facial stresses. Oblique load increased stress by 15 times than axial load.

Balshi et al 7 in 1997 studied about the clinical outcome of angulated abutments. They used angulated abutments and a combination of angled and standard abutments on 71 patients and did a follow up for 3 years. They concluded that angulated abutments showed good

preliminary results and should be compared to the standard abutment as a predictable modality in prosthetic rehabilitation.

(23)

Page 7 Brosh et al 10 in 1998 compared two experimental techniques for analyzing stress and strain around implants. According to the author strain gauges were reliable to study the strain around the implants, where as a photo elastic study can be regarded as a complimentary method. They concluded that strain values were more for angled abutments than straight abutments.

Ashok et al 3 in 2000 studied about the clinical success of angulated abutments between 0° to 45° .He concluded that angled abutments can be comfortably used in situations with

compromised bone. The esthetic and functional outcome was satisfactory. There was no significant difference between the clinical outcome of straight and angulated abutments.

Dorthy et al 4 in 2000 compared the success of implants placed with standard and angulated abutments. They compared the parameters like probing depth, gingival level, gingival index, and mobility. They concluded that there was no significant difference in those parameters between standard and angulated abutments. So it was suggested that angled abutments could be a suitable restorative option.

Geng et al 16 in 2001 reviewed that Finite element analysis (FEA) has been used extensively to predict the biomechanical performance of various dental implant designs as well as the effect of clinical factors on implant success. This article reviewed the current status of FEA applications in implant dentistry and discussed findings from FEA studies in relation to the bone–implant interface, the implant–prosthesis connection, and multiple-implant prostheses.

(24)

Page 8 Rickard Brånemark,P-I Brånemark,Björn Rydevik, Robert R. Myers 1 in 2001 reviewed about the concept of osseointegration and attempted to highlight the key developments in the research and application of osseointegration. In this article the author defines osseointegration and osseoperception. He explains in detail about the clinical applications of osseointegration.

Kaus et al 8 in 2002 described the concept of evaluation of angulated abutments ,which was originally developed first for the external hex implants .Then the concept was evolved to use in internal hex Morse taper connections .Authors have conducted a study for 151 months and total of 3101 implants were placed with 0 degree to 45 degree angled abutments. They concluded that the clinical out come of implants with angulated abutments were satisfactory and could be successfully used in implant rehabilitation.

Seivimay et al 20 in 2005 studied about stress concentrations around implant supported crowns in different bone qualities .Authors concluded that among the different qualities of bone D3 and D4 bone produced more stress around the implant. The highest stress

concentration was at the in neck of the bone.

Richad.J.Lazzara,Stephan.S.Porter28 in 2006 reviewed about the biological dimensions of hard and soft tissues around platform switched dental implants. Authors concluded that there were many advantages in platform switched implants over platform matched implants and supported the concept

(25)

Page 9 Jivraj et al 2 in 2006 explained the challenges in implant rehabilitation of the maxilla. They stated that the amount and quality of available bone will be less after extraction of teeth in the maxilla. Further esthetic concern is also an important .This article has compared the different treatment options available for treatment of edentulous maxilla and explained about the importance of diagnosis and treatment planning in such situations.

Xavier et al12 in 2007 studied the effect of abutment angulation on the strain on the bone around an implant in the anterior maxilla. He concluded that the strain values were 15%

higher in implants placed with straight abutments compared to the implants with angulated abutment.

Ming-Lun Hsu, Fang-Ching Chen,Hung-Chan Kao, Cheng-Kung Cheng 24 in 2007 conducted a finite element analysis on off-axis loading and concluded that to achieve a favourable prognosis, axial loading is recommended. Off-axis loads produce more stress than vertical loads.

Jose Henrique Rubo, Edson Antonio Capello Souza32 in 2008 conducted a finite element study to find the stress distribution around the dental implants. They concluded that the stress distribution was better with stiffer bone, longer abutments and implants with shorter

cantilevers. The use of co-cr alloy framework appears to contribute to better stress distribution.

(26)

Page 10 Hung-Chan Kao, Yih-Wen Gung,Tai-Foong Chung,Ming-Lun Hsu, Dr Med Dent33 in 2008 investigated the micromotion between the implant and surrounding bone caused by the implementation of an angled abutment for an immediately loaded single dental implant located in the anterior maxilla and concluded that abutment angulation up to 25 degrees can increase the stress in the peri-implant bone by 18% and the micromotion level by 30%.

Chun-Li Lin, Jen-Chyan Wang, Lance C. Ramp, Perng-Ru Liu34 in 2008 studied the biomechanical response of implant system placed in the maxillary posterior region and concluded that better stress/strain distribution is possible when implants are placed along the axis of loading with good cortical contact.

Francesco Carinci ,Giorgio Brunelli, Matteo Danza30 in 2009 studied about the bone platform switching and conventional implants. Bone platform switching involves an inward bone ring formation in coronal part of implants, obtained by using a dental fixture with reverse conical neck. They concluded that there was no difference in survival and success rates between conventional vs reverse conical neck implant.

Matteo Danza et al 39 in 2009 concluded that lowest stress value was found in the system with straight abutment loaded with vertical force while highest stress value was found in implants with 15° angulated abutment loaded with angulated force.

Cavallaro et al 9 in 2011 reviewed the usage of angled abutments in implant rehabilitation.

They concluded that angled abutments not only had satisfactory clinical outcome, but they also facilitated the paralleling of non aligned implants.

(27)

Page 11 Chun-Yeo Ha, Yung-Jun Lim, Myung-Joo Kim, Jung-Han Choi 37 in 2011 compared the removal torque values of different abutments(straight, angled and gold premachined UCLA- type) in external and internal hex implants after dynamic loading with clinical situation of the anterior maxilla. They concluded that there was no significant difference in removal torque value of internal hex implants.

Haibin, Zhiyong, Jinxin, Tao, Zaibo, Chuncheng 27 in 2011 compared the stress

distribution of non platform switched and platform switched abutment for implants supported single crown with finite element analysis and concluded that when platform switched

abutment were used, the maximum Von mises stress with the surrounding bone was lower.

However, this value is higher with in the fixture and screw.

Alper Gultekin, Pinar Gultekin and Serdar Yalcin21 in 2012 explained in detail about the application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry. They explained in detail about the basics of finite element analysis and steps in analysing the stress strain pattern in detail.

Paula et al13 in 2012 studied about the stress around the platform switched straight abutment and platform switched angled abutment with finite element analysis .They concluded that platform switched straight abutment showed more stress around the implant than the platform switched angled abutments. Further they stated that oblique load increased the stress than axial load.

(28)

Page 12 Rohit Bahuguna et al 25 in 2013 evaluated the stress pattern in bone around dental implants .Authors found that as the abutment angulation increased from 0° to 20°both compressive and tensile stresses also increased around the implants.

Angel Alvarez-Arenal, Luis Segura-Mori,Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Angel Gago 26 in 2013 concluded that platform switching reduced the stress values on the abutment and retention screw. The stress on abutment screw gradually increased as the loading direction changed from vertical to oblique.

Kumar et al19 in 2013 studied about stress distribution around implants with straight and angulated abutments in different bone qualities and concluded that angled abutments

produced more stress than straight abutments. The stress in D4 quality bone was more when compared to D1 quality bone .The high stress in the angled abutment at the cervical zone was due to forces and momentum around the cortex.

Paul, et al 15 in 2013 studied about the strain generated in bone by platform switched and non platform switched implants with straight and angulated abutments under vertical and

angulated load with finite element analysis. The results of this investigation indicated that the ideal values of microstrain (50-3000 microstrain) could be exhibited by platform switching of dental implants (with an abutment–implant diameter difference of 1 mm) and could be

considered as a better alternative for prevention of crestal bone loss when compared to non–

platform switched implant.

(29)

Page 13 Martini et al 14 in 2013 have done a finite element study to find out the influence of platform switching and angulated abutments on surrounding bone. They concluded that platform switched implant showed less stress in cortical bone around the fixture head than platform matched implants. Further angulated abutments showed more stress than straight abutments.

Kalavathy et al6 in 2014 reviewed the concept of platform switching in implants. They described about the factors that could lead to crestal bone loss. According to the authors platform switching concept effectively reduced the crestal bone loss by reducing the stress around the bone and shifting the implant abutment junction medially towards the centre of the implant. There by the biological width of 1.5 mm could be maintained with reduced crestal bone loss.

Pradeep Bholla, Liju Jacob Jo1, Kalepu Vamsi, Padma Ariga 38 in 2014 conducted a finite element study about the stress pattern at bone implant interface by angulated abutments.

They concluded that von mises stresses were more concentrated in cortical bone and more stress was seen in the crestal region. When the angulations were increased the stress around the implants also increased .Oblique loads increased the stress around implants than vertical loads.

(30)

Page 14 Yousuf Aseel KP, SripathiRao BH , Hassan Sarfaraz , Joyce Sequiera , Gunachandra Rai , Jagadish Chandra 29 in 2015 studied radiographically about the crestal bone loss around platform shifted and non platform shifted implants. They concluded that there was a significant difference between the crestal bone loss among the two types of implants after 6 months of functional loading. Platform switched implants produced less bone loss than non platform switched implants.

Mohamed A. Elsadek , Hesham A. Katamesh and Hanaa I. Sallam40 in 2016 evaluated sthe effect of implant platform switching on strain developed around implants with straight and angulated abutments using strain meter. They concluded that straight implants with straight platform-switched abutments were associated with the least microstrain values.

(31)

Materials and methods

(32)
(33)

Page 15

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A three dimensional finite element study was under taken to create model and analyse the situation. Finite element analysis was chosen to do this to determine the stress and strain around the dental implant and to study the mechanical behavior of complex structures easily by dividing the complex structures in to numerous small simple structures16.

Bone model

Lekholm and Zarb17 have explained the classification system of bone as follows:

Based on its radiographic appearance and the resistance at drilling, bone quality has been classified in four categories:

Type 1(D1) bone -the entire bone is composed of homogenous compact bone;

Type 2(D2) bone -a thick layer of compact bone surrounds a core of dense trabecular bone;

Type 3(D3) bone -a thin layer of cortical bone surrounds a core of dense trabecular bone; and Type 4(D4) bone -a thin layer of cortical bone surrounding a core of low density trabecular bone of poor strength. These differences in bone quality can be associated with different areas in the upper and lower jaw.

In this study the bone properties approximating those of D3 bone was used since 65% of bone found in the premaxillae is of D3 type12

Maxillary bone was modelled as a section simulating the pre maxillary area with cortical bone thickness of 1.5 mm enclosing the trabecular bone core.

The bone block was modelled with 18 mm height from base to crestal bone and 8 mm length mesio distally and 8 mm width bucco lingually.

(34)

Page 16 Implant model

A solid tapered, screw type ,root form , commercially pure titanium implant of 13 mm length and 4.3 mm diameter is modelled and simulated to be placed in the section of bone 15[Figure 1]. The dimensions of implant fixture including thread design and pitch were simulated with Noble Replace platform switching implants (Noble replace, Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden). The dimensions were obtained by the noble replace implant manual18. The implant was modelled with collar diameter of 4.3 mm and tip diameter of 2.56mm.Collar height was designed as 1.5 mm and thread height is of 12.07 mm. The pitch of the thread is of 0.71 mm.

Straight abutments(0°) and angulated abutments (15°,20°,25°) of 3.5 mm (platform switched) diameter are simulated with 10° occlusal taper and 7 mm.

Three dimensional finite element models were constructed for the following configurations.

PS 0-an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 0° (3.5 mm) straight abutment (figure 2 a).

PS 15-an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 15° (3.5 mm) angled abutment (figure 2 b).

PS 20-an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 20° (3.5 mm) angled abutment (figure 2 c).

PS 25-an implant fixture (4.3mm) with platform switched 25° (3.5 mm) angled abutment (figure 2 d).

[PS-Platform switched]

(35)

Page 17 Each of these implants were placed in four simulated premaxillary models of D3 bone quality.

Three dimensional models of the implant, bone and abutments have been

fabricated using Pro/Engineer Wildfire 2.0 software (Parametric Technology Corp, Needham, MA, USA).Thus total numbers of four simulated premaxillary models with different

abutment angulations for platform switched implants were generated.

The analysis was performed using the software ANSYS Workbench 15.0(Santa Monica, CA, U.S.A).The models were processed with ANSYS to generate a meshed

structure. Meshing divides the entire model in to smaller elements which are interconnected at specific joints called nodes. The default number of elements and nodes used for each model is shown in Table 1(a).

All the materials used in the models were considered to be isotropic,

homogenous, and linearly elastic. The osseointegration of implant was accepted as 100%.

Since there are no universally accepted properties of the biologic materials available in the literature, a mean value of the material properties has been used in the present study19,20 and have been tabulated in Table 1(b).

Young's modulus is the ratio of stress (which has units of pressure) to strain (which is dimensionless), and so Young's modulus has units of pressure. Its SI unit is therefore the pascal (Pa ). The practical units used are megapascals (MPa) or gigapascals (GPa).

Poisson's ratio is the ratio of transverse strain to axial strain. In other words, Poisson`s ratio is the amount of transversal expansion divided by the amount of axial compression, for small values of these changes.

(36)

Page 18 A simulated on axis load of 178N was applied at the centre of incisal edge, along the long axis of each abutment and a simulated off-axis load of 178 N was applied at the centre of incisal edge, 45° to the long axis of the abutment.

The amount of load selected in this study is based on the literature on average biting force for incisors12,19. The forces applied were static and von mises stress values around the implants were recorded.

In finite element analysis overall stress state at a point are summarized with von Mises stresses. All the materials including cortical bone, trabecular bone, titanium implant and titanium abutment were assumed to be linear, elastic, homogenous and isotopic.19, 20.

BASIC CONCEPT OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite element analysis is a practical application of finite element method, which is used by researchers and scientists to create a complex mathematical problem and to solve the problem by dividing the complex problem domain into numerous simple

domains(elements) and numerically solving the problem.

Finite element analysis was first introduced in aerospace industry in 1960s to solve structural problems. In late 1980s it was introduced to implant dentistry by

Weinstein16,21.

In finite element method the actual complex structure is divided in to numerous small simple structures called as finite elements. The finite elements are the divided, smaller and simpler parts of a complex domain. These elements inside the actual complex structure are inter connected by numerous nodes. The collection of numerous elements and nodes inside the complex structure is called mesh.

(37)

Page 19 The nodes lie on the boundary of the elements where adjacent elements are

connected. After meshing the next process is to define the boundary condition. In structural analysis, boundary conditions are applied to the regions of the model where the

displacements and/or rotations are known21. Such regions may be designed to remain fixed (have zero displacement and/or rotation) during the simulation or may have specified,non- zero displacements and/or rotations. The directions along which motion is possible are called degrees of freedom21.

The process of creating the mesh, elements and their respective nodes, and defining boundary condition is termed as “discretization” of the problem domain. Then the mechanical properties of desired materials are incorporated in the mesh to create a working model.

After meshing and defining the boundary condition of the model, the loads to be applied are defined and the results are reviewed.

(38)

Page 20 FUNDAMENTALS OF DENTAL IMPLANT BIOMECHANICS IN FEA

Photoelasticity is a method to determine the stress distribution in a material experimentally. The method is mostly used where mathematical methods become quite difficult. Unlike the analytical methods of stress determination, photoelasticity gives a fairly accurate picture of stress distribution around discontinuities in materials. The method is an important tool for determining critical stress points in a material, and is used for determining stress concentration in irregular geometries. But it does not give accurate stress value at a point.

A strain gauge is a device used to measure strain on an object. The strain gauge consists of an insulating flexible backing which supports a metallic foil pattern. The gauge is attached to the object by a suitable adhesive. As the object is deformed, the foil is deformed, causing its electrical resistance to change. This resistance change, usually measured using a Wheatstone bridge, is related to the strain by the quantity known as the factor. But this method is not so accurate because numerous factors like temperature, humidity and

permanent deformation of material will affect the results and reproducibility of this method.

Since dental implant –bone system is considered as a complex structure, finite element method is used to mathematically model the system. Finite element analysis has been found to be the most suitable and predictable tool to evaluate the effect of stress and strain around the implant and bone16.

(39)

Page 21 Finite element analysis has some advantages than other methods (photo elastic analysis, strain gauge analysis) of stress analysis. They are

1. It is a non invasive technique.

2. The alveolar bone, tooth and the implant can be simulated according to the

material properties of these structures in order to achieve nearest possibly simulating in vitro oral conditions

3. The actual stress experienced at any point can be measured.

4. Graphical visualisation of the actual implant displacement is possible.

5. Reproducibility does not affect the physical properties of involved materials and the study can be repeated to any number of times.

6. Accurate modelling of complicated real shapes can be done.

(40)

Page 22 ARMAMENTARIUM

1. INTEL CORE i3-PROCESSOR 2.2.13 GHZ SPEED

3.3 GB RAM

4.320 GB HARD DISC DRIVE 5.52 x CD ROM

6.15 INCH COLOUR MONITOR

7. WINDOWS 10.64 -BIT BASED PROCESSOR 8. PRO-ENGINEERING WILD FIRE SOFTWARE

9. ANSYS WORKBENCH 15.0 FINITE ELEMENT SOFTWARE 10. KEY BOARD

11. MOUSE

(41)

Page 23 Table 1(a):Number of elements and nodes

Models Elements Nodes

PS 0 2239 6351

PS 15 2335 6756

PS 20 2366 6916

PS 25 2299 6588

Table 1 (b) :Material properties used in FEA Study Material Youngs Modulus(GPa) Poisons ratio Titanium abutment & implant 110 0.35

Dense trabecular bone (D1,D2&D3)

1.37 0.3

Low density trabecular bone (D4 Bone)

1.10 0.3

Cortical bone 13.7 0.3

(42)

Page 24 Figure 1 (a):

Implant diameter-4.3 mm and Implant height-13 mm A. Collar height- 1.5 mm.

B. Thread pitch- 0.71 mm.

C. Major diameter-4.3 mm.

D. Minor diameter -3.67 mm.

E. Thread height -12.07 mm.

F. Overall length- 13.6 mm.

G. Tip diameter- 2.56 mm.

Figure 1(a): Dimension of Implant fixture.

Figure 1 (b): bone model with implant and platform matched straight abutment

(43)

Page 25 FIGURE 2 (A): PS 0- AN IMPLANT FIXTURE (4.3MM) WITH PLATFORM SWITCHED 0° (3.5 MM) STRAIGHT ABUTMENT.

FIGURE 2 (B): PS 15- AN IMPLANT FIXTURE (4.3MM) WITH PLATFORM SWITCHED 15° (3.5 MM) ANGULATED ABUTMENT.

(44)

Page 26 FIGURE 2 (C): PS 20 - AN IMPLANT FIXTURE (4.3MM) WITH PLATFORM SWITCHED 20° (3.5 MM) ANGULATED ABUTMENT.

FIGURE 2 (D): PS 25 - AN IMPLANT FIXTURE (4.3MM) WITH PLATFORM SWITCHED 25° (3.5 MM) ANGULATED ABUTMENT.

(45)

Page 27 Figure 3: FEM mesh created by an analyst prior to finding a solution to a problem using FEM software.

(46)

Results

(47)

Page 28

RESULTS

Stress distribution was represented numerically and it was colour coded. The maximum von Mises stress around the platform switched straight abutment for axial load was 12.79 Mpa and maximum von Mises stress value was increased with increase in abutment angulation (Table-2). The maximum value around platform switched 25°abutments for axial load was recorded as 40.12 Mpa. The von Mises stress value around the platform switched implant in cancellous bone follows the same pattern and was less when compared with cortical bone, the values ranged between 0.60 Mpa (for straight abutment) to 1.12 Mpa (for 25° angled

abutment) (Table-3).

The maximum von Mises stress around the platform switched straight abutment for 45° off- axis load was 84.13 Mpa and maximum von Mises stress value was increased with increase in abutment angulation (Table-2). The maximum value around platform switched

25°abutments for axial load was recorded as 157.32 Mpa. The von Mises stress value around the platform switched implant in cancellous bone followed the same pattern and was less when compared with cortical bone, the valued ranges between 2.03 Mpa (for straight abutment) to 4.44 Mpa (for 25° angled abutment) (Table-3).

The maximum von Mises strain value for cortical bone in platform switched abutments for axial load increased with increase in abutment angulation. Strain has no unit, but it can be converted in to microns (10-6 ) and expressed as microstrains, the microstrain value ranged between 882 micro strains for straight abutment to 3220 microstrains for 25 ° abutment.

(Table 4).The strain value for cancellous bone was less when compared to cortical bone, and ranged between 448 micro strains for straight abutment and 809 microstrains for 25°

angulated abutment. (Table 5).

(48)

Page 29 The Maximum von Mises strain value in off-axis loading for platform switched abutments increased with increase in abutment angulation and ranged between 6904 microstrains for straight abutment to 13313 microstrains for 25° abutment (Table 4).The strain value for cancellous bone was less when compared to cortical bone and ranged between 1505 microstrains for straight abutment and 3154 microstrains for 25° angulated abutments.

(Table 5).

The maximum von Mises stress and strain values for platform switched implant with 45° off- axis load increased several folds when compared to platform switched implant with axial load for all abutment angulations.

(49)

Page 30

Table -2

The value of von Mises stress for the models with platform switched abutments.(units in Mpa)

Abutment angulation Cortical bone (in Mpa) Axis load Off-axis load Straight 0° abutment 12.79 84.13

15 °angulated abutment 24.66 157.32 20 °angulated abutment 34.07 166.52 25 °angulated abutments 40.12 175.48

Table -3

The value of von Mises stress for the models with platform switched abutments.(units in Mpa).

Abutment angulation Cancellous bone (in Mpa) Axis load Off-axis load

Straight 0° abutment 0.60 2.03

15 °angulated abutment 0.88 3.88

20 °angulated abutment 1.01 3.79

25 °angulated abutments 1.12 4.44

(50)

Page 31

Table -4

The value of von Mises strain for the models with platform switched abutments in micro strains (strain × 10 -6 ).

Abutment angulation Cortical bone (in microstrains) Axis load Off-axis load Straight 0° abutment 982 6904

15 °angulated abutment 2672 12035 20 °angulated abutment 3087 12903 25 °angulated abutments 3220 13313

Table -5

The value of von Mises strain for the models with platform switched abutments in micro strains (strain × 10 -6 ).

Abutment angulation Cancellous bone (in micro strains) Axis load Off-axis load

Straight 0° abutment 448 1505

15 °angulated abutment 677 2562 20 °angulated abutment 755 2787 25 °angulated abutments 809 3154

(51)

Page 32 Bar diagram showing stress values (in Mpa) with in cortical bone around the implant

Bar diagram showing stress values (in Mpa) with in cancellous bone around the implant

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0 °abutment 15° abutment 20°abutment 25°abutment 12.79

24.66 34.07 40.12

84.13

157.32 166.52 175.48

axial load off-axis load

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

0 ° abutment 15°abutment 20°abutment 25°abutment 0.6

0.88 1.01 1.12

2.03

3.88 3.79

4.44

axial load off-axis load

(52)

Page 33 Bar diagram showing strain values (in micro strains) with in cortical bone around the implants

Bar diagram showing strain values (in micro strains) with in cancellous bone around the implants

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

0 ° abutment 15 °abutment 20° abutment 25 °abutment 982

2672 3087 3220

6904

12035

12903 13313

axial load off-axis load

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0 °abutment 15 °abutment 20° abutment 25° abutment 448

677 755 809

1505

2562

2787

3154

axial load off-axis load

(53)

Page 34 FIGURE 4 A: PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN

STRAIGHT ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 4 B: THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(54)

Page 35 FIGURE 5 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN

STRAIGHT ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 5 B: THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(55)

Page 36 FIGURE 6 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN 15°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 6 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(56)

Page 37 FIGURE 7 A: PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUE IN 15°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 7 B :THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE WAS SHOWN WITH TAG

(57)

Page 38 FIGURE 8 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN 20°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 8 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(58)

Page 39 FIGURE 9A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN 20°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 9B: THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(59)

Page 40 FIGURE 10A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN 25°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 10B: THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(60)

Page 41 FIGURE 11 A:PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRESS VALUES IN 25°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 11 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRESS VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(61)

Page 42 FIGURE 12 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN

STRAIGHT ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 12 B:THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(62)

Page 43 FIGURE 13: A PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN

STRAIGHT ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 13 B: THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(63)

Page 44 FIGURE 14 A PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN 15°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 14 B: THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(64)

Page 45 FIGURE 15 :A PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN 15°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 15 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(65)

Page 46 FIGURE 16 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN 20°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 16 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(66)

Page 47 FIGURE 17 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN 20°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 17 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(67)

Page 48 FIGURE 18 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN 25°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR AXIAL LOAD.

FIGURE 18 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(68)

Page 49 FIGURE 19 A :PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF STRAIN VALUES IN 25°

ANGLED ABUTMENT FOR OFF-AXIS LOAD.

FIGURE 19 B : THE MAXIMUM VON MISES STRAIN VALUES IN CORTICAL AND CANCELLOUS BONE HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH TAGS.

(69)

Discussion

(70)

Page 50 DISCUSSION

The close relationship between the tooth and alveolar process continues

throughout life. Wolff’s law (1892) states that bone remodels in relation to the forces applied.

Every time the function of bone is modified, a definite change will occur in the internal architecture and external configuration17.

The greater the magnitude of stress applied to the bone, greater will be the strain observed. Bone modelling and remodeling are primarily controlled by the mechanical

environment of the strain. The density of alveolar bone evolves as a result of mechanical deformation from the microstrain. In the theory of mechanostat, H. M. Frost15 proposed that the bone mass is the direct result of the mechanical usage of skeleton. A model of four zones for the compact bone as related to mechanical adaptation to the strain has been proposed: The pathologic overload zone (greater than 3000 microstrain), mild overload zone (1500-3000), adapted window (50-1500), and acute disuse window (0-50). Crestal bone loss will be often evidenced during the early implant loading, as the result of bone in the pathologic overload zone (excess stress and strain at the implant–bone interface). Stress is seen to be greatest at the crest, compared with other regions in the implant body. An optimum strain environment will exist for each specific anatomical area and the peak strains innate for that area should be maintained to optimize the bone’s response15.

Bone resorption is a common phenomenon in the residual alveolar ridge. After extraction the pattern of bone loss cannot be predicted in anterior maxilla22.Survival rate of implant is less when placed in anterior maxilla than in anterior mandible23. As the bone volume is less in anterior maxilla than the mandible, long term prognosis will be less in maxilla.

(71)

Page 51 After extraction in the anterior maxillary region there will almost be twice the amount of horizontal bone resorption when compared to the vertical bone resorption2. This situation can be managed either by surgical management or by placing implants in areas of greatest bone availability. This change in implant angulations can be corrected by placing angulated abutments during prosthetic rehabilitation. There are wide ranges of pre angled abutments available in the market. Additionally custom made abutments can also be made according to the prosthetic situation.

In the present study a bone block of D3 type was modeled as a section simulating the pre maxillary area, since 65% of bone found in the premaxillary area is of D3 type. As, already discussed, after extraction the bone width will reduce rapidly in the premaxillary area, so implants with wide diameter are not commonly used in the premaxillary region. The available height of bone will be more when compared to posterior regions, because

anatomical limitations are less for selecting implant length in the premaxillary area. So with the most commonly available width and height of bone in the premaxillary area, the implant dimensions of 4.3 mm diameter with 13 mm length can be placed in the premaxillary area.

So, the implant dimension modeled in the study was selected as 4.3 mm in width and 13 mm in length.

Even though only 1mm of bone around the implant is sufficient for implant placement, for convenience to study the flow of stress pattern around wider areas, bone was modeled with 8 mm width and 18 mm height.

The abutment diameter platform switch was modeled according to the

manufacturer instructions(Noble replace platform switch-Noble bio care, Goteborg ,Sweden) .The thread dimensions for the implant was obtained from the noble replace implant

(72)

Page 52 manual(Noble replace platform switch-Noble bio care ,Sweden) and has been discussed with more details in the materials and methodology section.

For evaluating stress and strain around the implant, finite element analysis was used. Even though finite element study values are quantitatively not reliable, three

dimensional finite element study is qualitatively reliable and is an excellent tool for comparative study.

The mean value of the material properties are chosen from literature for titanium alloy, cancellous and cortical bone12,19. A simulated load of 178 N was applied at the centre of the abutment. The load value was selected according to the average biting force of the incisors and it was chosen from literature12,19.

During incising, the load will be directed towards the long axis of the tooth .The loading condition along the long axis of the abutment was simulated in accordance with that.

During eccentric movement lateral load will be applied to the long axis of the tooth, so the off-axis loading condition was simulated in accordance with that24,25.

Platform switching was introduced to reduce the crestal bone loss and increase the implant survival. Platform switching concept implies the use of undersized abutment diameter than the implant diameter. There by the implant abutment junction is shifted from perimeter of implant to the central axis of implant6.

Platform switching concept works on the basis of reduced stress and strain around the crest of the marginal bone. As the perimeter of implant shifts to central axis, the stress concentration around the implant is reduced. These results were concluded in many other studies14,26,27.

(73)

Page 53 Other than the reduction in stress concentration platform switched implants have many other advantages to reduce the crestal bone loss. The important factor is shifting the implant abutment junction medially from the implant perimeter. Implant abutment junction (IAJ) will be located in the implant perimeter for platform matched abutment. Whatever may be the seal between implant and abutment there will be small micro gap between the implant and abutment. This micro gap leads to the collection of inflammatory cell infiltrate (ICT) in the implant abutment junction. The toxins from the inflammatory cell infiltrate will induce bone loss up to 1.5mm6, within one year after loading.

So in all two piece implants there will be a initial bone loss of around 1.5 mm to 2mm from the implant abutment junction. So this implant abutment junction will maintain a biological width (junctional epithelium + connective tissue) of 1.5mm to 2mm from IAJ to the crest of peri-implant bone. As the IAJ gets shifted medially in platform switched

implants, the biological width will be shifted coronally as compared to the platform matched implants. This biological width along with the soft tissue thickness will maintain a minimum soft tissue seal of 3mm28.

More over the angle of spread of the toxins from implant abutment junction in platform matched implant is vertical (180°) .In platform switched implant as the implant abutment junction is shifted medially, the angle of spread of toxins is horizontal (90°).So this horizontal angulation reduces the accessibility of the toxins to the bone. This is also an

important factor in platform switched implant for the reduction in crestal bone loss around the implants28.

This concept of platform switching starts from second stage of surgery during conventional implant placement. This usage of undersized prosthetic platform should be followed by placing a healing collar of reduced diameter, than the implant fixture head28.

(74)

Page 54 Even though the stresses in the bone around the platform switched implant is less than platform matched abutment, finite element studies by Haiben et al27 and Alvarez-renal et al27 showed that, the stress in the implant fixture and abutment screw was more for platform switched implants than platform matched implants, in axial loading. The possible reason for lower stress in the platform matched implants may be due to the greater diameter of

abutment, which distributes the loads better as a result of increased contact area between implant and abutment. In platform switched implants the size of the contact area between implant and abutment is less. Therefore, less stress from the abutment is transferred to the surrounding bone and more stress is concentrated within the fixture and screw. This may cause problems such as fixture and screw deformation or even fracture, if over the elastic limit.

Apart from the finite element analysis studies, there are some radiographic studies which conclude that there will be less crestal bone loss in platform switched implants than platform matched implants after loading29.

Bone platform switching30 is a concept which was introduced by using the reverse conical neck implant fixture. These type of implants produce more amount of residual crestal bone volume around the implants, thereby reducing the stress in crestal alveolar bone area, repositioning of gingival papilla on the bone ring ,and a proper vascular supply to hard and soft tissues in case of reduced inter implant distance. But it was shown that reverse conical neck by itself is not enough to reduce the crestal bone loss. The medial shift in implant abutment junction is needed to reduce the crestal bone loss significantly.

There are many studies on implant biomechanical behavior which conclude that stresses are more concentrated in bone-implant interface at the level of crestal bone31, 32, 33, 34.After the loading of implants, crestal bone loss and early implant failure occurs due to

(75)

Page 55 excess stress concentrated in the implant bone interface. This phenomenon is explained in many finite element stress evaluation studies35, 36, 31, 10, 12,33,34,37

.

This study shows that the maximum von Mises stress values found at the crestal bone in platform switched implants was 12.79 Mpa for axial load & 84.13 Mpa for off-axis load (Table 2).

During incising maximum compressive load is applied on the incisors. If the abutment is placed along the long axis of the implant then the stresses will be evenly distributed in and around the implants. When the abutment is in an angulation with the implant, then the stresses will be concentrated in the bone opposite to that of the abutment angulation19. Current study also shows the same phenomenon .The von Mises stresses in the current study were concentrated in the area of bone, opposite to the side to which the

abutment was angulated.

The amount of maximum von Mises stress and strain around the platform

switched implants was increased when the abutment angulation increased (Table 2 and 4), so comparatively 15° angulated abutments produced more stress and strain (24.66 Mpa & 2672 micro strains) than the straight (12.79 Mpa& 982 micro strains) abutment,20° angled abutment (34.07 Mpa & 3087 micro strains) produced more stress and strain than the 15°

angled abutment & 25° angled abutment (40.12 Mpa & 3220 micro strains) produced more stress and strain than the 20° angled abutment. The amount of stress and strain values around the platform switched implants increased with an increase in abutment angulation. This result can be compared with many finite element studies14, 19, 38, 39.

A strain gauge analysis by Mohamed A. Elsadek, et al40 also concluded that straight implants with straight platform-switched abutments were associated with the least

References

Related documents

In view of the above, the aim of the present in-vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the reverse torque values of

While raising the investment limit on the basis of some valid and generally admissible criteria, other factors like the number of employees in the enterprises and the turnover,

A MENA regional land restoration program should build on previous success, integrate the unique factors of MENA, the drivers of desertification, and bring in impact investors

In our study , we chose two SNPs of PON-1 Paraoxanase gene namely Q192R and L55M , based on the population genetics by Sangera et al (4) study among Indian population. The

Ajay Dhawle et al, compared the effectiveness of transdermal Nitro- glycerine and Oral Nifedipine for acute Tocolysis in the prevention of Preterm Labour througha

On comparison of the mean post-cyclic loading reverse torque values of both Group I and Group II in the present study, it was found that the mean post- cyclic loading reverse

 Pursue and advocate for specific, measurable and ambitious targets in the post- 2020 global biodiversity framework to catalyse national and international action,

The Use of Performance-Based Contracts for Nonrevenue Water Reduction (Kingdom, Lloyd-Owen, et al. 2018) Note: MFD = Maximizing Finance for Development; PIR = Policy, Institutional,