Association between implant apex and sinus floor in posterior maxilla dental implantation: A three-dimensional finite element analysis

Yan,Xu; Zhang,Xinwen; Chi,Weichao; Ai,Hongjun; Wu,Lin

doi:10.3892/etm.2015.2205

Association between implant apex and sinus floor in posterior maxilla dental implantation: A three-dimensional finite element analysis

Authors:
- Xu Yan
- Xinwen Zhang
- Weichao Chi
- Hongjun Ai
- Lin Wu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Prosthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, P.R. China, Center of Implant Dentistry, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, P.R. China, School of Astronautics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, P.R. China
Published online on: January 22, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2205
Pages: 868-876

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of the association between the implant apex and the sinus floor in posterior maxilla dental implantation by means of three‑dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) analysis. Ten 3D FE models of a posterior maxillary region with a sinus membrane and different heights of alveolar ridge with different thicknesses of sinus floor cortical bone were constructed according to anatomical data of the sinus area. Six models were constructed with the same thickness of crestal cortical bone and a 1‑mm thick sinus floor cortical bone, but differing heights of alveolar ridge (between 10 and 14 mm). The four models of the second group were similar (11‑mm‑high alveolar ridge and 1‑mm‑thick crestal cortical bone) but with a changing thickness of sinus floor cortical bone (between 0.5 and 2.0 mm). The standard implant model based on the Nobel Biocare® implant system was created by computer‑aided design (CAD) software and assembled into the models. The materials were assumed to be isotropic and linearly elastic. An inclined force of 129 N was applied. The maximum von Mises stress, stress distribution, implant displacement and resonance frequencies were calculated using CAD software. The von Mises stress was concentrated on the surface of the crestal cortical bone around the implant neck with the exception of that for the bicortical implantation. For immediate loading, when the implant apex broke into or through the sinus cortical bone, the maximum displacements of the implant, particularly at the implant apex, were smaller than those in the other groups. With increasing depth of the implant apex in the sinus floor cortical bone, the maximum displacements decreased and the implant axial resonance frequencies presented a linear upward tendency, but buccolingual resonance frequencies were hardly affected. This FE study on the association between implant apex and sinus floor showed that having the implant apex in contact with, piercing or breaking through the sinus floor cortical bone benefited the implant stability, particularly for immediate loading.

View Figures

View References

1	Winter W, Krafft T, Steinmann P and Karl M: Quality of alveolar bone - structure-dependent material properties and design of a novel measurement technique. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 4:541–548. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Ding X, Zhu XH, Liao SH, Zhang XH and Chen H: Implant-bone interface stress distribution in immediately loaded implants of different diameters: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 18:393–402. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Meredith N, Books K, Friberg B, Jemt T and Sennerby L: Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 8:226–233. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Mohammed Ibrahim M, Thulasingam C, Nasser KS, Balaji V, Rajakumar M and Rupkumar P: Evaluation of design parameters of dental implant shape, diameter and length on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 11:165–171. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar :
5	Lee JH, Frias V, Lee KW and Wright RF: Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 94:377–381. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Toniollo MB, Macedo AP, Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF and de Mattos Mda G: Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution on different bony ridges with different lengths of morse taper implants and prosthesis dimensions. J Craniofac Surg. 23:1888–1892. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Jeong CM, Caputo AA, Wylie RS, Son SC and Jeon YC: Bicortically stabilized implant load transfer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 18:59–65. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
8	Geng JP, Tan KB and Liu GR: Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 85:585–598. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Van Staden RC, Guan H and Loo YC: Application of the finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 9:257–270. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Bozkaya D, Muftu S and Muftu A: Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 92:523–530. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Chang PC, Lang NP and Giannobile WV: Evaluation of functional dynamics during osseointegration and regeneration associated with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 21:1–12. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Huang HM, Lee SY, Yeh CY and Lin CT: Resonance frequency assessment of dental implant stability with various bone qualities: a numerical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res. 13:65–74. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Pattijn V, Van Lierde C, Van der Perre G, Naert I and Vander Sloten J: The resonance frequencies and mode shapes of dental implants: Rigid body behaviour versus bending behaviour. A numerical approach. J Biomech. 39:939–947. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Pommer B, Unger E, Sütö D, Hack N and Watzek G: Mechanical properties of the Schneiderian membrane in vitro. Clin Oral Implants Res. 20:633–637. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
15	Underwood AS: An inquiry into the anatomy and pathology of the maxillary sinus. J Anat Physiol. 44:354–369. 1910.PubMed/NCBI
16	Ulm CW, Solar P, Gsellmann B, Matejka M and Watzek G: The edentulous maxillary alveolar process in the region of the maxillary sinus - a study of physical dimension. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 24:279–282. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	van den Bergh JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJ and Tuinzing DB: Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 11:256–265. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Gosau M, Rink D, Driemel O and Draenert FG: Maxillary sinus anatomy: a cadaveric study with clinical implications. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 292:352–354. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Rues S, Lenz J, Schierle HP, Schindler HJ and Schweizerhof K: Simulation of the sinus floor elevation. Proc Appl Math Mech. 4:368–369. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Huang CC, Chen LW, Wu DF and Chen YC: Finite element simulations of the contact stress between rotary sinus lift kit and sinus membrane during lifting process. Life Sci J. 9:167–171. 2012.
21	Mellal A, Wiskott HW, Botsis J, Scherrer SS and Belser UC: Stimulating effect of implant loading on surrounding bone. Comparison of three numerical models and validation by in vivo data. Clin Oral Implants Res. 15:239–248. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Morneburg TR and Pröschel PA: Measurement of masticatory forces and implant loads: a methodologic clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 15:20–27. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
23	Lekholm U, Zarb GA and Albrektsson T: Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Quintessence Publishing; Chicago, IL, USA: pp. 199–209. 1985
24	Okumura N, Stegaroiu R, Nishiyama H, Kurokawa K, Kitamura E, Hayashi T and Nomura S: Finite element analysis of implant-embedded maxilla model from CT data: comparison with the conventional model. J Prosthodont Res. 55:24–31. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Akca K and Cehreli MC: Biomechanical consequences of progressive marginal bone loss around oral implants: a finite element stress analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput. 44:527–535. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Cannizzaro G, Felice P, et al: Early implant loading in the atrophic posterior maxilla: 1-stage lateral versus crestal sinus lift and 8 mm hydroxyapatite-coated implants. A 5-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implant. 6:13–25. 2013.
27	Doan N, Du Z, Crawford R, Reher P and Xiao Y: Is flapless implant surgery a viable option in posterior maxilla? A review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 41:1064–1071. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Wang D, Künzel A, Golubovic V, et al: Accuracy of peri-implant bone thickness and validity of assessing bone augmentation material using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 17:1601–1609. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
29	Chou IC, Lee SY, Wu MC, Sun CW and Jiang CP: Finite element modelling of implant designs and cortical bone thickness on stress distribution in maxillary type IV bone. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 17:516–526. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
30	Sul SH, Choi BH, Li J, Jeong SM and Xuan F: Histologic changes in the maxillary sinus membrane after sinus membrane elevation and the simultaneous insertion of dental implants without the use of grafting materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 105:e1–e5. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Pjetursson BE, Rast C, Brägger U, Schmidlin K, Zwahlen M and Lang NP: Maxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients’ perception. Clin Oral Implants Res. 20:667–676. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI