4.1 Article

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Porous-Structure Implant: Finite Element Study

出版社

QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.1666

关键词

dental implant; engineered porous-structure implant; finite element analysis; implant displacement; strain; stress

资金

  1. National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC)
  2. Advanced Dental Technology Center (ADTEC)
  3. Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The biomechanical performance of a novel engineered porous-structure implant (EPSI) with various porosities and a conventional solid-structure implant (CSSI) was investigated and compared. Materials and Methods: The three-dimensional finite element method was applied to titanium dental implant models placed in a block of bone that included both cortical and medullary bone. Five different pore sizes and porosities of the EPSI (58% porosity [PSI-58], 62% porosity [PSI-62], 71% porosity [PSI-71], 75% porosity [PSI-75], and 79% porosity [PSI-79]), were compared with the CSSI. Equivalent von Mises (EQV) stress, strain energy density, and displacement were examined for each implant design. Results: The maximum EQV stresses exhibited in cortical bone of the EPSI models were lower than those of the CSSI model. Higher EPSI porosity tended to increase the EQV stress. The EPSI appeared to share the load with the cortical bone, as evidenced by lower strain energy density in the cortical bone of EPSI models. High values for displacement were observed at the coronal part of the implant in all models. Slight differences in maximum displacement values were seen between EPSI and CSSI models. Conclusion: The EPSI effectively reduced the maximum EQV stress in the cortical bone and enhanced the load-sharing capacity. A significant amount of energy was absorbed by the implant instead of being transferred to the surrounding cortical bone. Varying the porosity of an implant had less effect on implant displacement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据