Docstoc

Koh+Mui+Yee_FYP

Document Sample
Koh+Mui+Yee_FYP Powered By Docstoc
					              SIM UNIVERSITY
    SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY




   A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
 MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC




           STUDENT      : Y0706993 (PI NO.)
           SUPERVISOR   : DR HO TECK TUAK
           PROJECT CODE : JAN2010/BME/0014




           A project report submitted to SIM University
     In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
          Bachelor of Science in Biomedical engineering
                          November 2010
                                         Abstract
Statistics done by American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon (AAOMS)
have shown that approximately 69% of adults ranging from ages 35 to 44 would have lost
at least one permanent tooth due to environmental or accidental factors such as; accident,
gum disease, failed root canal or even tooths decay.
By the age of 74, approximately 26% of the adult population in American would have lost
all of their permanent teeth.
Regardless of it cause, missing teeth can be reinstated for both aesthetic and functional
purpose.

Dental Implant is the ideal replacement of missing teeth by means of an artificial root;
usually made of titanium. This process is done firstly by, drilling cavities upon the jaw
bone into the position of the missing teeth, followed by fastening the implant with a crown
or denture mimicking the teeth structure and functions.
Research evidence had shown that dental implant do provide the ability to provide long
term or permanent solution for the missing teeth and thus delaying the process of bone
atrophy as well as safe guarding the surrounding healthy teeth. Therefore, with the
advancement of novel discoveries of orthodontic implants, dental implants are transforming
to be a favourable treatment option for the replacement of missing teeth.

Nowadays, dental implants are mainly produced with biocompatible forms of titanium or
titanium alloy that fuses with the jawbone; where it integrates with the bone over a span of
several months upon the process known as osseo-integration, therefore reducing the
developmental possibility of bone atrophy. When a tooth is missing, the bone in that area
may erode and weakens shortly. Therefore, the implant provides the required strength, thus
reduce the risk of developing bone atrophy.
An abutment, which secures onto the implant and a dental prosthesis such as crown will be
placed over it to mimic as a real tooth for a natural appearance.
With a historical research foundation of 50 years and generally 95% of successful rate,
dental implant has become the most common and an excellent option for replacing missing
teeth with comparison to other conventional methods such as; dentures and bridge.

The overall objective of the project is the understanding of FEA modelling for both
commercial and research models and how it is applied to the dental implant analyses, the
key factors to be considered in a FEM analysis implant and the design parameters to
identify for a new conceptual design of a dental implant. The literature research is based on
the commercial models analysis. This new conceptual dental implant will be an
improvement from previous dental implant designs in both biological as well as
biomechanical characteristics such as; loading strength, implant geometry that would
proliferate better healing in a shorter duration, as well as material properties that attributes
to the integration of surrounding bone tissue would definitely be deemed as the next best
choice in the market for both dentists and patients for treatment.

At the end of the project, a new prototype is design using Pro-E and created into a physical
model by using polymer clay and heating it into the solid state. The design parameters are
as such diameter of 4.0mm, total length of 11.0mm, thread pitch of 1.8mm, thread width of
0.21mm, thread height of 0.46mm, Trapezoidal thread and double threaded, 1.0mm of
retention element at the neck area, dental implant material using of commercially pure
titanium Ti6Al4V and surface coated with calcium phosphate.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 2
                          ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my project supervisor, Dr Ho Teck
Tuak. For his time, valuable advised and guidance throughout the term of the project.
Throughout the term of the project, Dr Ho has been guiding me and teaching me the way
how a researcher would carry out their research. The mindset and attitude a researcher
should have. Dr Ho has also constantly injected me with his upbeat and positive spirit to
continue with my project, whenever I feel lost during the research.
Without Dr Ho guidance and patience, I would not have been able to complete the project
or to design a whole new conceptual dental implant. The most importance experience from
the project was to gain life-enriching knowledge of FEA and dental implant from Dr Ho.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the school; UNISIM. For the kind supports and
funding the school have extend out to the students. My deepest gratitude to Ms Jennifer
Huang; for her scarified of time and effort given to each and every individual students and
her kind assistance.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 3
                                 List of Figures
Figure 1a     Study implant                                                      Pg 13
Figure 1b     Isodensity marking on bone around the study implant                Pg 13
Figure 1c     FEA of the Study Implant                                           Pg 13
Figure 2a     AVANA Self Tapping Implant                                         Pg 13
Figure 2b     Double Threaded Implant                                            Pg 13
Figure 2c     Mises stress distribution of implant (top view)                    Pg 13
Figure 2d     Stress distribution of implant                                     Pg 13
Figure 3a     Press-Fit Straight Cylindrical Implant                             Pg 13
Figure 3b     Press-Fit Stepped Cylindrical Implant                              Pg 13
Figure 3c     2D model before meshing                                            Pg 13
Figure 4a     Computed Model                                                     Pg 14
Figure 4b     Mesh of the implant                                                Pg 14
Figure 5a     Schematic drawing of implants                                      Pg 14
Figure 5b     Stress Distribution of implants                                    Pg 14
Figure 6a     Bone stress                                                        Pg 14
Figure 6b     Maximum stress between cancellous bone and implant contact         Pg 14
              area
Figure 6c     3D FEA model                                                       Pg 14
Figure 7a     L1 to B10 locations in implant                                     Pg 14
Figure 7b     Stress distribution of implant                                     Pg 15
Figure 7c     Cylindrical implant and Stepped implant                            Pg 15
Figure 8a     Von Mises Stress and Strain on implant                             Pg 15
Figure 8b     Geometry of initial model                                          Pg 15
Figure 9a     FEA modeling                                                       Pg 15
Figure 9b     Implant placements                                                 Pg 15
Figure 9c     X-Ray image of implants                                            Pg 15
Figure 9d     Von Mises Stress Contours of Implants                              Pg 15
Figure 9e     5 commercial Implant models                                        Pg 16
Figure 10a    Schematic representation of Implant                                Pg 16
Figure 10b    FEA Meshing of model                                               Pg 16
Figure 11a    Smooth neck model and retention element model                      Pg 16
Figure 12a    Element mesh and principal stress contour                          Pg 16
Figure 12b    Profile of thread                                                  Pg 16
Figure 13a    Compressive stress in crestal bone and implant neck                Pg 16
Figure 13b    Implant model 1-3                                                  Pg 17
Figure 14a    : Implant model ITT, Frialit and Calcitek                          Pg 17
Figure 14b    FEA Modeling                                                       Pg 17
Figure 14c    Distribution and maximum principal stress values in bone and       Pg 17
              implant
Figure 15a    Truncated V-thread (V) , Thin thread (T), Square thread of 0.2mm   Pg 17
              (S1) thread width & Square thread of 0.36mm (S2) thread width
Figure 15b    Implant under boundary conditions                                  Pg 17
Figure 15c    Stress distribution of models                                      Pg 17
Figure 16a    3D FEA model and load directions                                   Pg 18
Figure 16b    Cross sectional view of meshed model                               Pg 18
Figure 16c    EQV stress distribution in bone and displacement in implant        Pg 18

Figure 17a    Cross sectional view of meshed model                               Pg 18
Figure 17b    Schematic representation of implant                                Pg 18
Figure 18a    3D solid models of 5 commercial models                             Pg 18
A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 4
Figure 19a    Von Mises stress fields distribution                               Pg 19
Figure 19b    Schematic 3D images of ITI-Bonefit                                 Pg 19
Figure 19c    FEA Models                                                         Pg 19
Figure 19d    3D geometric element model of implant and surrounding bone.        Pg 19
Figure 20a    Branemark System Mark III                                          Pg 19
Figure 20b    Replace Select System                                              Pg 19
Figure 21     Maxillary anterior implants                                        Pg 20
Figure 22     Narrow Implants                                                    Pg 20
Figure 23     Tapered Internal implant                                           Pg 20
Figure 24     Single stage                                                       Pg 20
Figure 25     Internal implant                                                   Pg 20
Figure 26     External implant                                                   Pg 21
Figure 27     Straight Wall Body style: NanoTite Certain® PREVAIL®               Pg 21
              Implants
Figure 28     Straight Wall Body style: NanoTite Parallel Walled Certain         Pg 21
              Implants
Figure 29     Straight Wall Body style: NanoTite Parallel Walled Implants        Pg 21
Figure 30     Straight Wall Body style: Osseotite Certain® PREVAIL®              Pg 22
              Implants
Figure 31     Straight Wall Body style: Osseotite Parallel Walled Certain        Pg 22
              Implants
Figure 32     Straight Wall Body style: Full Osseotite Parallel Walled Certain   Pg 22
              Implants
Figure 33     Straight Wall Body style: Osseotite XP Certain Implants            Pg 22
Figure 34     Straight Wall Body style: Full Osseotite XP Certain Implants       Pg 23
Figure 35     Straight Wall Body style: Osseotite Parallel Walled Implants       Pg 23
Figure 36     Straight Wall Body style:                                          Pg 23
              Full Osseotite Parallel Walled Implants
Figure 37     Straight Wall Body style: Osseotite XP Implants                    Pg 24
Figure 38     Straight Wall Body style: Full Osseotite XP Implants               Pg 24
Figure 39     Straight Wall Body style: NanoTite Certain PREVAIL Implants        Pg 24
Figure 40     Straight Wall Bodystyle: Osseotite Certain PREVAIL Implants        Pg 24
Figure 41     Tapered Body style: NanoTite™ Tapered Certain® Implants            Pg 25
Figure 42     Tapered Body style: NanoTite™ Tapered Body style:                  Pg 25
Figure 43     Tapered Body style: Osseotite™ Tapered Certain Implants            Pg 25
Figure 44     Tapered Body style: Full Osseotite™ Tapered Certain Implants       Pg 25
Figure 45     Tapered Body style: Osseotite™ Tapered Implants                    Pg 25
Figure 46     Tapered Body style: Full Osseotite™ Tapered Implants               Pg 26
Figure 47     Tapered Body style: Nanotite™ Tapered Certain PREVAIL              Pg 26
              Implants
Figure 48     PrimaSolo (One-piece)                                              Pg 26
Figure 49     PrimaConnex (Tapered)                                              Pg 27
Figure 50     PrimaConnex (Straight)                                             Pg 27
Figure 51     Restore                                                            Pg 27
Figure 52     Renova (Tapered)                                                   Pg 28
Figure 53     Renova (Straight)                                                  Pg 28
Figure 54     Stage 1                                                            Pg 28
Figure 55     Nobel Active Implant                                               Pg 29
Figure 56     Nobel Replace (Tapered)                                            Pg 29
Figure 57     Nobel Speedy Replace                                               Pg 29
Figure 58     Branemark System                                                   Pg 30
Figure 59     GS System                                                          Pg 30

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 5
Figure 60     SS System                                                         Pg 31
Figure 61     US System                                                         Pg 31
Figure 62     Standard Implant                                                  Pg 32
Figure 63     Standard Plus                                                     Pg 32
Figure 64     Tapered Effect                                                    Pg 32
Figure 65     Tapered screw-vent implant system                                 Pg 33
Figure 66     Zimmer one piece implant                                          Pg 33
Figure 67     Advent Implant System                                             Pg 34
Figure 68     Spline Reliance Cylinder                                          Pg 34
Figure 69     Spline Twist Implant                                              Pg 34
Figure 70     Tapered SwissPlus Implant                                         Pg 35
Figure 71     Straight SwissPlus Implant                                        Pg 35
Figure 72     New conceptual prototype dental implant design                    Pg 37
Figure 73     Pro-E System                                                      Pg 38
Figure 74     Conceptual Prototype design                                       Pg 38


                                  List of tables
Table 1       List of comparison dental implant models obtained from research   Pg 13
              journals
Table 2       List of commercial dental implant models                          Pg 20
Table 3       Recommended and not recommended parameters                        Pg 35




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 6
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                              Page

      ABSTRACT                                                                     2
      ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                                                              3
      List of Figures                                                              4
      List of Tables                                                               6

      CHAPTER ONE
           INTRODUCTION

             1.1       Project Objective                                        8
             1.2       Overall Objective                                        8
             1.3       Introduction to FEA                                      9
             1.4       Introduction to Dental Implant                           10
             1.5       Proposed Approach and Method to be Employed              11
             1.6       Layout of the Project Report                             12

      CHAPTER TWO
           LITERATURE REVIEWS

             2.1       Comparison of research and commercial models             13
             2.2       Comparison of different parameters range recommended     35
             2.3       Evaluation of Research models                            35
             2.4       Evaluation of commercial models                          36
             2.5       Propose of new conceptual prototype design               37

      CHAPTER THREE
           RESULT                                                               38

      CHAPTER FOUR
           DISCUSSION                                                           39

      CHAPTER FIVE
           SUMMARY

             5.1        Conclusion                                              40
             5.2         Future research work                                   41

      CHAPTER SIX
           CRITICAL REVIEW AND REFLECTIONS                                      41

      CHAPTER SEVEN
          REFERENCES                                                            42



A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 7
                                      1. Introduction
1.1 Project Objective

The project objective is to review the advances of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models
for dental implants and to find out the design parameters used in the FEA models. Students
are then to design and propose a new dental implant prosthetic.


1.2 Overall Objective

Over the past two decades, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has progressively becoming a
useful tool for the analyses of the effects of stress on the dental implant and its surrounding
bone. Dental Implant is the replacement of missing teeth by means of an artificial root;
usually made of titanium. Drill into the jaw bone, where the missing teeth had been, and
fasten the implant with a crown or denture mimicking the teeth structure and functions.

FEA has also been successfully predicting biomechanical performance of various dental
implant designs, including the effect of clinical factors on implant success. For example
Nobel Biocare Company has been analyzing dental implant with the aid of FEA to achieve
excellent biomechanical result of dental implant.

The ability in understanding the basic theory, method, application and limitation of the
FEA use in dentistry implant allows designer to be more equipped with the results achieved
from FEA and thus improving implant design. At the same time, saving time and cost on
implementing implants. For instance, researchers may have to spend a considerable time
and resources in creating a protocol where it may not yield positive result. FEA provides
with the ability to trial run and analysis the dental implant with different aspect of stress
and stimulate the situation teeth might be encountering, before creating the beginning
manufacturing the dental implant. Applying FEA simulation, allows researcher to
understand the biomechanical performance of the dental implant, and a chance to correct
the dental implant to reach it optimal result before implementing the production of dental
implant. Thus, FEA save the amount of time and money spend for the research work of
each new development of a dental implant.

A few success examples of dental implant in the market using FEA for analysis are brands
like Nobel Biocare; the Nobel Speedy Replace is designed with FEA and the end product
increased the initial stability in soft bone. The tapered tip allows for underprepared sited in
softer bone and offers an exceptionally high initial stability in all bone conditions.
Zimmer dental; Zimmer one piece implant, has the functions for small incisor locations.
From BioHorizons are the Tapered Internal implant made with Laser-lok surface, analysis
shown to have functionally oriented connective tissue attachment. Buttress thread has a
wide, flat leading edge for increased functional surface area, improved axial load
distribution and primary stability.

Dental implants are suitable for almost everyone, except for young children and patients
with severe bone loss. However with the current medical technology, even patient with
bone loss can receive bone graft treatment to replace the missing bone and permits body to
re-grow new bone in the implantation areas, so as to proceed with dental implant
treatments.
With the use of dental implants, it can provide a long range of benefits. Dental implants are
much stronger and durable as compare to bridges and dentures. It is also a permanent
solution to tooth loss, as the dental implant mimics a real teeth function. Patient can bites


A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 8
with forces close to their natural teeth, increases chewing efficiency as compare to
dentures.
Dental implant also aids to boost patient confidence level. This is possible with the dental
implant, as patient does not have to worry about the dentures popping out from their mouth,
or food sticking to the dentures. Dental implants are also mimics very well to look natural,
to be an affording and excellent aesthetics and greatly improve patient smiles.

The overall objective of the project is the understanding of FEA modelling for both
commercial and research models and how it is applied to the dental implant analyses, the
key factors to be considered in a FEM analysis implant and the design parameters to
identify for a new conceptual design of a dental implant. The literature research is based on
the commercial models analysis. This new conceptual dental implant will be an
improvement from previous dental implant designs in both biological as well as
biomechanical characteristics such as; loading strength, implant geometry that would
proliferate better healing in a shorter duration, as well as material properties that attributes
to the integration of surrounding bone tissue would definitely be deemed as the next best
choice in the market for both dentists and patients for treatment.

Research on type of designs available in the commercial allows the understanding of the
effect of each design has on the implant and to the surrounding bone.
An implant with improve loading strength, implant geometry that assist better healing,
material properties that attributes to the integration of surrounding bone would definitely be
the next better choice in the market for both dentists and patients.


1.3 Introduction to FEA

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a numerical method use to analyze any specific product or
model developed into a computer graphical model of a material or design. Whereby the
model is simulated in an environment of stress and analyzed for specific results. Providing
solutions to problems that would otherwise is difficult to obtain.
FEA is often used in development of new product design or used to refine an existing
product. With the aids of FEA, companies are able to verify if the proposed products meet
the specific requirements before manufacturing or construction. [28] [29]

In theory, the model is meshed and divided into a number of discrete elements for analyses.
The system may seem to be complex and element of irregular shape, however the individual
elements are easy to be broken down for analyses, and the elements can be presented in 1
Dimensional, 2 Dimensional; triangular or quadrilateral shape, or in 3 Dimensional;
tetrahedral, hexahedral shape etc.
A 2 Dimensional modelling allows the simplicity analyses to be performed on a relatively
normal computer, the result as compare to a 3 Dimensional modelling may be less accurate.
A 3 Dimensional would take a longer time to perform its analyses, but has the ability to
provide a much accurate data. However the choice of using 2D or 3D, depend on the
significant and qualitative requirements of per user. The system would permits user to input
in numerous algorithms and appoint the system to behave linearly or non-linearly. [25]

The history of FEA dated way back into the 1660s, started from Robert Hooke who
originate with the law of the proportionality of Force and Displacement. As deformation
and stress analysis involves with the formulation of force-displacement relationships.
Hence, FEA history is also known as the history of discretisation, whereby the whole
domain is divided into a numerous of simple shapes.
The history progress from 1774; concepts of Discretisation of Continua by Euler, 1864;
Framework Analysis by Maxwell, 1875; Virtual work Methods for Force-Displacement

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 9
relationships by Castigliano, 1906; Lattice Analogy for Stress Analysis by Wieghardt,
1915; Stiffness Formulation of Framework Analysis by Maney and Series Solution for
Rods and Plates by Galerkin, 1932 Moment Distribution Method for Frames by Hardy
Cross, 1940; Relaxation (Finite Difference) Methods by Southwell, 1941; Framework
Method for Elasticity Problems by Hrenikoff, 1942; Finite Difference Methods for Beams
and Columns by Newmark, 1943; Concept of Discretisation of Continua with Triangular
Elements by Courant and Lattice Analogy for Plane Stress Problems by McHenry, 1953;
Computerization of Matrix Structural Analysis by Levy, 1954; Matrix Formulation of
Structural Problems by Argyris, 1956; Triangular Element for Finite Element Plane Stress
Analysis by Turner, 1960; Computerization of Finite Element Method by Clough, 1963;
Mathermatical Formalization of the Finite Element Method by Melosh,1964; Matrix
Methods of Structural Analysis by Livesley, 1965; Plane stress and strain, and Axi-
symmetric Finite Element Program by Wilson, 1967; Finite Element Method in Structural
and Continuum Mechanics by Zienkiewicz and 1972 Finite Element Applications to
Nonlinear Problems by Oden. [28]

It was in 1960s when FEA was developed to solve the structural problems in aerospace
industry and has since been stretched out to solve many other applications like heat
transfer, fluid flow and mass transport. In 1977, Weinstein was the first to use FEA in
implant dentistry. FEA has been allowing scientist to predict the stress distribution in the
contact area of the implant with cortical bone and around the top of the implant in
trabecular bone. This is very important to the scientist, as the success or failure of the dental
implant depends on the stresses transferred to the surrounding bone, and the load
transferred from implant to its surrounding bone. Stress distribution depends on the
assumptions made and modelling the implant geometry, material properties, boundary
conditions and bone-implant interface. Whereas load transfer depends on the type of
loading, bone-implant interface, length and diameter of the implants, shape and
characteristics of the implant surface, prosthesis type, quality and quantity of the
surrounding bone to be fused with the implant. [28]

FEA used in implant dentistry has proposed better biomechanical situations when factors
like implant inclination, implant positions, prosthetic material properties, implant geometry,
loading and boundary conditions are optimized.

FEA is a beneficial computational tool which can be applied from engineering to dental
implant biomechanics. Helps to minimize the time spend for correcting the implant design
such as weight and materials. Overall, reducing the costs and resources spend, thus, being
the critical technology to be used on analyzing dental implant - bone interfaces.


1.4 Introduction to Dental Implant

Statistics done by American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon (AAOMS),
have shown that approximately 69% of adults ranging from ages 35 to 44 would have lost
at least one permanent tooth due to environmental or accidental factors such as; accident,
gum disease, failed root canal or even tooth decay.
By the age of 74, approximately 26% of the adult population in American would have lost
all of their permanent teeth. [37]
Regardless of it cause, missing teeth can be reinstated for both aesthetic and functional
purpose.
Dental Implant is the ideal replacement of missing teeth by means of an artificial root;
usually made of titanium. This process is done firstly by, drilling cavities upon the jaw
bone into the position of the missing teeth, followed by fastening the implant with a crown
or denture mimicking the teeth structure and functions. [36]

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 10
Research evidence had shown that dental implant do provide the ability to provide long
term or permanent solution for the missing teeth and thus delaying the process of bone
atrophy as well as safe guarding the surrounding healthy teeth. Therefore, with the
advancement of novel discoveries of orthodontic implants, dental implants are transforming
to be a favourable treatment option for the replacement of missing teeth. [37]

Nowadays, dental implants are mainly produced with biocompatible forms of titanium or
titanium alloy that fuses with the jawbone; where it integrates with the bone over a span of
several months upon the process known as osseo-integration, therefore reducing the
developmental possibility of bone atrophy. When a tooth is missing, the bone in that area
may erode and weakens shortly. Therefore, the implant provides the required strength, thus
reduce the risk of developing bone atrophy.
An abutment, which secures onto the implant and a dental prosthesis such as crown will be
placed over it to mimic as a real tooth for a natural appearance.
With a historical research foundation of 50 years and generally 95% of successful rate,
dental implant has become the most common and an excellent option for replacing missing
teeth with comparison to other conventional methods such as; dentures and bridge.

The credit of realizing dental implant would have to be presented to Professor Per-Ingvar
Branemark and Leonard Linkow. In 1952 Dr Branemark had a tremendously fortunate
accident, discovering titanium could bond irreversibly to the living bone tissue, during his
orthopedic research. The bonding is known as fibro-osseous. Dr Branemark realized his
discovery would lead to unlimited application beyond the field of orthopedics.
It was Leonard Linkow, who first utilized titanium in intra-oral rehabilitation. In his report,
it was indicated that “titanium blade form intra-osseous implants to provide stability and
enhanced function to partial and complete dentures. “ Further leading to the development of
a series of studies for improve demonstration of the potential to osseo-integration in
treating edentulism. Thus, Dr Branemark reverts to the studies and introduces the concept
of using hollow titanium screws for the same purpose. Through clinical applicability,
success rate and reduced rate of complications, hollow titanium screws have been proven
that it functions much better than the previously used blade-form implants. The current
endosseous implants are very much similar to the hollow titanium screws by Dr Branemark,
having the analogous morphology and configuration. [26] [27]

However, overloading of the implant can result in bone re-absorption or even fatigue failure
of the implant. While under load could result in bone atrophy of the jawbone. Using the
technology of Finite Element Analysis (FEA), this would enable the simulation of
interaction phenomena between implants and it surrounding tissues.
The analysis is done by accessing on different loading, implant and the surrounding tissues.
FEA divides the whole dental implant domain into small element termed as discretization.
The procedure is done by creating mesh, elements, respective nodes and defining the
boundary conditions of the whole domains. Thus, formulating solution functions for each
individual finite element and then combining them to obtain a solution as whole. [35] [28]

Dental implant-bone interface is an extremely complex geometry and FEA has been
regarded as the most suitable tool to mathematically remodel the implant for analysis by
numerous scholars. [35]


1.5 PROPOSED APPROACH AND METHOD TO BE EMPLOYED

Dental implants analyses using the Finite Element Analysis method are increasingly
becoming the standard in the dentistry. The first approach of the project would be the


A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 11
understanding of how FEA works. The procedures to perform a FEM analysis for a dental
implant design.

After understanding FEA, the next step would be gathering the past literature reviews and
research works performs by FEA on dental implants.
By learning and understanding the past and current works, data will be collected based on
the design parameter like implant geometry, loading, material properties and Von Mises
stresses for comparison.
The data collected will then be used to devise a new conceptual prototype dental implant
design in the market.

1.6 Layout of the Project Report

Chapter begins with the introduction of the project, covering topics on the project objective,
overall objective of the project, introduction to FEA, introduction to dental implant and
proposed approach and method to be employed.
Chapter 2 is the literature reviews of several dental implants using FEA method from
research journal and from commercial website. Comparisons of dental implant geometry,
such as diameter, length, thread shape and types, thread pitch and material use. Evaluation
of the research models, commercial models and conceptual prototype design will also be
discussed.
Chapter 3 reflects the result of the new conceptual prototype dental implant design, through
the recommendation by the others researchers and the stated optimal parameters.
Chapter 4 is on the discussion of the FEA method used in dental implant and it advantages,
the difficulties faced during the project and how it was overcome. The recommended
optimal parameters by other researchers will also be discussed and why it is applied as the
new conceptual prototype design.
Chapter 5 is the summary of the entire report, covering the conclusion and suggestion for
future research work. Chapter 6 is about the critical review and reflections of my personal
thoughts regarding to the project. Chapter 7 is the references cited in the project.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 12
                                              2. Literature Reviews

A series of literature review is performs to understand what are the important factors for
optimal dental implant design. Two different types of studies are carries out, the research
journal and from commercial website. In the research journals, dental implant models
analyzed by FEA were studied through commercial models. From the research journal
dental implant parameters of optimal result were recorded. Thus, a new conceptual dental
implant design is devised.

2.1 Comparison of commercial and research models

Nos                    Physical model/FEA Model                                             Parameters
                                                                                 Program: ANSYS Version 5.3
                                                                                 Material: Pure titanium Type IV
                                                                                           (commercially )
                                                                                 Implant surface: Resorbable blast
           Figure 1a: Study Implant
                                                                                                   medium (RBM)
                                                                                 Element: NA
                                                                                 Node: NA
                                                                                 Possion Ratio: NA
                                                       Figure 1c: FEA of the     Young Modulus: NA
                                                       Study Implant



        Figure 1b: Isodensity marking on
        bone around the study implant
1 [3]
                                                                                 Program: ABAQUS version 5.8
                                                                                 Material: Titanium alloy
                                                                                 Element: Tetrahedron; AVANA
        Figure 2a: AVANA Self
                                                                                         = 11 250 & D/T = 19859
        Tapping Implant                                                          Node: AVANA = 19 859, D/T =
                                        Figure 2c: Mises                               19 883
                                        stress distribution
                                        of implant (top                          Possion Ratio: 0.3
                                                                  Figure 2d:
                                        view)                     Stress         Young Modulus: 11GPa
                                                                  distribution
        Figure 2b: Double Threaded (D/T)                          of implant

2 [6]
                                                                                 Program: ANSYS University
                                                                                          Edition version 5.3
                                                                                 Material: Ti-6AL-4V16,
                                                                                 Element: Quadrilateral;
                                                                                           Total 900elements
                                                                                 Node: 8 nodes; total 2800
                                                                                 Possion Ratio: Cortical bone &
                                                                                 Trabecular bone = 0.33, Titanium
        Figure 3a: Press-Fit Straight        Figure 3b: Press-Fit Stepped
        Cylindrical Implant                  Cylindrical Implant                 = 0.33
                                                                                 Young Modulus: cortical bone =
                                                                                 15GPa, Trabecular bone = 0.15
                                                                                 GPa & Titanium = 110GPa

                                        Figure 3c: 2D model before meshing
3 [2]


A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 13
                                                                            Program: ABAQUS version 5.8;
                                                                            Material: NA
                                                                            Element: NA
                                                                            Node: NA
                                                                            Possion Ratio: Cortical bone=0.3
                                                                            Young Modulus: Cortical bone =
                                                                            13.7GPa

          Figure 4a: Computed
          Model
  4                                                Figure 4b: Mesh of the
                                                   implant
[14]
                                                                            Program: FEA
                                                                            Material: NA
                                                                            Element: 13 000
                                                                            Node: 39 000
                                                                            Possion Ratio: Pure Titanium =
                                                                            0.35 Compact bone = 0.3
                Figure 5a: Schematic drawing of implants                    Young Modulus: Pure Titanium
                                                                            = 11.5GPA, Compact bone =
                                                                            14.8GPa




                       Figure 5b: Stress Distribution of implants
5 [4]
                                                                            Program: ANSYS
                                                                            Material: Titanium
                                                                            Element: NA
                                                                            Node: NA
                                                                            Possion Ratio: Cortical &
               Figure 6a: Bone stress
                                                                            Cancellous bone = 0.3, titanium
                                                                            implant = 0.35, porcelain
                                                                            prosthesis = 0.19
                                                        Figure 6c: 3D FEA
                                                        model               Young Modulus: Cortical =
                                                                            15GPa Cancellous bone =
                                                                            1.5GPa, Titanium implant =
        Figure 6b: Maximum stress between                                   110GPa, porcelain prosthesis =
  6     cancellous bone and implant contact area                            70GPa
[22]
                                                                            Program: PATRAN 8.5
                                                                            Material: NA
                                                                            Element: Used Element
                                                                            Topology: Quad4.
                                                                            Node: NA
                                                                            Possion Ratio: Implant &
                                                                            Cortical = 0.3, Trabecular = 0.31
                                                                            Young Modulus: Implant =
                                                                            117GPa, Cortical = 13.4GPa,
                                                                            Trabecular = 1.37 Gpa
            Figure 7a: L1 to B10 locations in implant




7 [9]
A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 14
        Figure 7b: Stress distribution
        of implant                          Figure 7c: Cylindrical   Stepped

                                                                               Program: ANSYS
                                                                               Material: NA
                                                                               Element: 507
                                                                               Node: 1707
                                                                               Possion Ratio: Cortical&
                                                                               Trabecular & porcelain = 0.3,
                                                                               Implant & abutment = 0.35
                                                                               Young Modulus: Cortical
                                                                               =13.7GPa, Trabecular = 1.85GPa,
                                              Figure 8b: Geometry of           Porcelain = 67.2GPa, Implant &
                                              initial model
                                                                               Abutment = 110GPa


        Figure 8a: Von Mises Stress and Strain on implant
8 [1]
                                                                               Program: ANSYS 7.1
                                                                               Material: Titanium alloy,
                                                                               Ti6Al4V
                                                                               Element: Tetrahedral
                                                                               Node: 10-node
                                                                               Possion Ratio: Implant = 0.34,
                                    Figure 9a: FEA modeling                    Cortical & Trabecular = 0.3
                                                                               Young Modulus: Implant =
                                                                               114.GPA, Cortical & Trabecular
                                                                               = 13.7GPa, Cancellous = 0.5GPa




                                                   Figure 9c: X-Ray image
                                                   of Implants
            Figure 9b: Implant placements




            Figure 9d: Von Mises Stress Contours of Implants

  9
[15]

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 15
                     Figure 9e: 5 commercial Implant models


                                                                             Program: ANSYS
                                                                             workbench10.0
                                                                             Material: NA
                                                                             Element: Tetrahedron,
                                                                             Hexahedron Average = 220,000
                                                                             elements
                                                                             Node: 10-Node, 20-Node Average
                                                                             = 310,000
                                                                             Possion Ratio: Cortical &
                                                                             Cancellous = 0.3, Titanium=0.35,
       Figure 10a: Schematic                 Figure 10b: FEA                 Porcelain = 0.28
       representation of Implant             Meshing of model                Young Modulus: Cortical =
                                                                             14GPa Cancellous = 1.37GPa,
10                                                                           Titanium= 110GPa, Porcelain =
[7]                                                                          68.9GPa
                                                                             Program: NISA
                                                                             Material: NA
                                                                             Element: Square
                                                                             Node: 4-Node
                                                                             Possion Ratio: Cortical = 0.3,
                                                                             Cancellous = 0.2, Titanium = 0.34
                                                                             Young Modulus: Cortical =
                                                                             15GPa, Cancellous = 456GPa,
                                                                             Titanium = 107 Gpa
               Figure 11a: Smooth neck       Retention element
 11                         model              model
[23]
                                                                             Program: ANSYS; revision 5
                                                                             Material: NA
                                                                             Element: quadrilateral; 1129
                                                                             Node: 4-Nodes
                                                                             Possion Ratio: 0.3
                                                                             Young Modulus: Cortical =
                                                                             0.051GPa, 0.133GPa, 0.193GMpa
                                                    Figure 12b:
                                                    Profile of thread
        Figure 12a: Element mesh and
 12     principal stress contour
[21]
                                                                             Program: NISA
                                                                             Material: NA
                                                                             Element: Hexahedral brick
                                                                             Node: 20-Noded
                                                                             Possion Ratio: NA
                                                                             Young Modulus: NA
 13        Figure 13a: Compressive stress in crestal bone and implant neck
[19]

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 16
                            Figure 13b: Implant model 1-3


            ITI                   Frialit                Calcitek                 Program: Artisan Series 4.0 &
                                                                                  Mentat Software to constitute
                                                                                  final
                                                                                  solid mesh
                                                                                  Material: NA
                                                                                  Element: ITI (SCNT) = 96, 845,
                                                                                  Frialit 2 (SCT) = 222,276,
        Figure 14a: Implant model ITT, Frialit and Calcitek
                                                                                  Calcitek (CVGT) = 224,978
                                                                                  Node: ITI (SCNT) =20,009 ,
                                                                                  Frialit 2 (SCT) = 41,413 , Calcitek
                                                                                  (CVGT) = 41,731
                                                                                  Possion Ratio: Titanium = 0.33,
                                                                                  Cortical = 0.3, Cancellous = 0.33
                                                                                  Young Modulus: Titanium
                                                                                  =105GPA , Cortical =14.8GPA ,
                                                                                  Cancellous =1.85GPA

                                        Figure    14c:   Distribution  and
       Figure 14b:      FEA             maximum principal stress values in
 14    modeling                         bone and implant

[18]
       Figure 15a: Truncated V-thread (V) , Thin thread (T),                      Program: PATRAN 8.5
       Square thread of 0.2mm (S1) thread width & Square thread                   Material:
       of 0.36mm (S2) thread width
                                                                                  Element: Element Topology:
                                                                                  Quad4
                                                                                  Node: NA
                                                                                  Possion Ratio: Implant =0.3 ,
                                                                                  cortical =0.3 , trabecular =0.31
                                                                                  Young Modulus: implant
                                                                                  =117GPa , cortical =13.4GPa ,
                                                                                  trabecular = 1.37GPa




          Figure 15b: Implant under             Figure 15c: Stress distribution
 15       boundary conditions                   of models
[10]




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 17
                                                                              Program: Ansys Workbench10.0
                                                                              Material: ITI1 used as reference
                                                                              for the research.
                                                                              Element: Tetrahedron &
                                                                              Hexahedron
                                                                              Node: 10 and 20 respectively
                                                                              Possion Ratio: Titanium =0.35 ,
       Figure 16a: 3D FEA model                 Figure 16b: Cross sectional
                                                                              cortical =0.3 , cancellous =0.3 ,
       and load directions                      view of meshed model          porcelain = 0.28
                                                                              Young Modulus: Titanium
                                                                              =102GPa , cortical =13GPa ,
                                                                              cancellous = 0.69GPa , porcelain
                                                                              = 68.9GPa




         Figure 16c: EQV stress distribution in bone and displacement in
 16      implant
[24]
                                                                              Program: Ansys Workbench10.0
                                                                              Material: NA
                                                                              Element: Tetrahedron &
                                                                              Hexahedron; Average =170,000
                                                                              Node: 10 and 20 respectively;
                                                                              Average = 250,000.
                                                                              Possion Ratio: Cortical=0.3,
                                                                              Cancellous=0.3, Titanium=0.35,
                                                                              Ceramic = 0.28
                                                                              Young Modulus:
                                                  Figure17b:Schematic
                                                  representation of implant   Cortical=13GPa,
       Figure 17a: Cross sectional                                            Cancellous=1.37GPa,
       view of meshed model                                                   Titanium=102GPa, Ceramic
 17                                                                           =68.9GPA
[11]
                                                                              Program: Ansys 7.1
                                                                              Material: NA
                                                                              Element: Tetrahedral
                                                                              Node: 10
                                                                              Possion Ratio: Titanium
                                                                              alloy=0.34, Gold alloy=0.23,
                                                                              Cancellous=0.3, Cortical=0.3
                                                                              Young Modulus: Titanium
              Figure 18a: 3D solid models of 5 commercial models
                                                                              alloy=114, Gold alloy=105,
 18                                                                           Cancellous=1, Cortical=13.7GPa
[16]




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 18
                                                                           Program: Modulef program
                                                                           Material: Commercially pure
                                                                           titanium
                                                            Figure19b:     Element: Tetrahedral; 10 213
                                                            Schematic      Node: 2492
                                                            3D images of
                                                            ITI-Bonefit    Possion Ratio: Titanium =0.35,
                                                                           Cancellous=0.3, Compact=0.3
                                                                           Young Modulus: Titanium
                                                                           =13.76GPa, Cancellous=7.93GPa,
        Figure 19a: Von Mises                                              Compact = 13.76GPa
        stress fields distribution




                   Figure19c:FEA
                   Models




                          Figure19d: 3D geometric element
 19                       model     of    implant     and
                          surrounding bone.
[17]
                                                                           Program: HyperWorks & LS3D-
                                                                           Dyna
                                                                           Material: NA Element: NA
                                                                           Node: NA
                                                                           Possion Ratio: Titanium & Bone
                                                                           1&2 = 0.3
                                                                           Young Modulus: Titanium =
           Figure 20a:   Branemark System Mark III                         117GPa & Bone 1 = 9.5GPa &
                                                                           bone2 = 6GPa




 20           Figure 20b: Replace Select System
[12]
Table 1: List of comparison dental implant models obtained from research journals




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 19
     Co                                                                                Diameter
                                      Model                                                               Special Features (SF)
No   mp                                                                                   (D)
                                      Name                                                                   Indications (I)
     any                                                             Implant Image    Length (L)
                                                                                     D: 4.0mm,     SF:


                                      anterior implants
                                                                                     4.5mm         Enhanced locking taper connection


                                         Maxillary
                                                                                     L: 8.0mm,     for retrievability.
1                                                                                    11.0mm        I: Designed for single or multiple
     Bicon; USA; Boston [30]


                                                                                                   tooth restorations
                                                                         Figure 21

                                                                                     D:3.5 Mm,     SF:
                                                                                     4.0mm         1. Sloping shoulder enhances
                                          Narrow Implants




                                                                                     L: 8.0mm,     crestal bone preservation.
                                                                                     11.0mm        2. Provides space for the interdental
                                                                                                   papillae and natural-looking
2
                                                                                                   gingival aesthetics.

                                                                                                   I: Facilitate restoration of missing
                                                                       Figure 22                   maxillary lateral incisors and
                                                                                                   individual mandibular incisors.
                                                                                     D:3.8mm,      SF:
                                          Tapered Internal implant




                                                                                     4.6mm,        1. Laser-Lok surface oriented
                                                                                     5.8mm         connective tissue attachment.
                                                                                                   2. Buttress threads with wide, flat
                                                                                     L:7.5mm,      leading edge, increased surface
3                                                                                    9.0mm,        area, improved axial load
                                                                                     10.5mm,       distribution and primary stability.
                                                                                     12.0mm,
                                                                       Figure 23     15.0mm        I: Engineered for long-term
                                                                                                   aesthetic results
     BioHorizons; USA; Alabama [31]




                                                                                     D: 3.5mm,     SF:
                                                                                     4.5mm,        1. Power threads maximum surface
                                                                                     5.7mm         area, support high occlusal forces.
                                                                                                   2. Provides up to 154% greater
                                          Single stage




                                                                                     L: 7mm,       surface area and axial loading.
4                                                                                    9mm,          3. Long-term secure even with
                                                                                     10.5mm,       limited ridge height and poor bone
                                                                                     12mm,         quality.
                                                                                     15mm
                                                                        Figure 24
                                                                                                   I: Designed for one-stage surgical
                                                                                                   protocols.
                                                                                     D: 3.5mm,     SF:
                                                                                     4.5mm,        1. Thread design maximizes
                                                                                     5.7mm         implant surface area.
                                          Internal implant




                                                                                     L:
5
                                                                                     9.0mm,10.5
                                                                                     mm,
                                                                                     12.0mm,15.
                                                                        Figure 25    0mm




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 20
                                                                           D:3.5mm,      SF:
                                                                           4.0mm,        1. Offers surgeon maximum
                                                                           5.0mm,        benefits and results that exceed
                                                                           6.0mm         expectations.



                                      External implant
                                                                                         2. External’s square-thread imparts
                                                                           L: 9mm,       10 times less destructive stresses at
6                                                                          10.5mm,       the implant / bone interface.
                                                                           12mm,         3. Maximizing compressive load
                                                                           15mm          transfer and providing excellent
                                                                                         primary stability.
                                                               Figure 26
                                                                                         4. Square-thread gives 154%
                                                                                         greater surface area, exhibited
                                                                                         higher reverse torque values.
                                                                           D:3.25mm,     SF:
                           PREVAIL® Implants
                           NanoTite Certain®
                           Straight Wall Body style:




                                                                           4.0mm,        1. The NanoTite Implant; Bone
                                                                           5.0mm         Bonding Surface By The
                                                                                         Interlocking Of The Newly Formed
                                                                           L: 8.5mm,     Cement Line Matrix Of Bone With
7                                                                          10mm,         The Implant Surface.
                                                                           11.5mm,
                                                                           13mm,         2. NanoTite Improve the Rate And
                                                                           15mm          Extent Of Osseointegration to
                                                              Figure 27
                                                                                         Implant Stability
                                                                           D:3.25mm,     NanoTite Implants May Be Used
                           Implants
                           NanoTite Parallel Walled Certain
                           Straight Wall Body style:




                                                                           4.0mm,        For
                                                                           5.0mm,
                                                                           6.00mm        I:
                                                                                         1. Immediate Function On Single
     Biomet3i; USA [32]




                                                                           L: 8.5mm,     Tooth
                                                                           10mm,
8                                                                          11.5mm,       2. And/Or Multiple Tooth
                                                                           13mm,         Applications
                                                                           15mm,
                                                                           18mm
                                                                            (for
                                                              Figure 28    diameter of
                                                                           3.25mm,
                                                                           4.0mm )
                                                                           D:
                                                                           3.25mm,4.0
                          Straight Wall Body style:
                          NanoTite Parallel Walled




                                                                           mm,
                                                                           5.0mm,
                                                                           6.00mm
                                   Implants




9
                                                                           L: 8.5mm,
                                                                           10mm,
                                                                           11.5mm,
                                                                           13mm,
                                                              Figure 29    15mm,
                                                                           18mm




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 21
                                                                       D:




          PREVAIL® Implants
          Osseotite Certain®
          Straight Wall Body style:
                                                                       3.25mm,4.0
                                                                       mm, 5.0mm

                                                                       L: 8.5mm,
10                                                                     10mm,
                                                                       11.5mm,
                                                                       13mm,
                                                                       15mm
                                                           Figure 30


                                                                       D:
              Osseotite Parallel Walled Certain Implants
              Straight Wall Body style:



                                                                       3.25mm,4.0
                                                                       mm,
                                                                       5.0mm,
                                                                       6.00mm
                                                                                    SF:
                                                                       L: 8.5mm,    1. Patented acid-etched surface
                                                                       10mm,        provides an effective clot/implant
11                                                                     11.5mm,      attachment, increased platelet
                                                                       13mm,        activation and red blood cell (RBC)
                                                                       15mm ,       agglomeration.
                                                           Figure 31   18.0mm
                                                                       (for D       2. Benefits of increased Contact
                                                                       =3.25mm),    Osteogenesis, especially in poor-
                                                                       20.0mm       quality bone.
                                                                       (for
                                                                       D=4mm)
                                                                       D:
          Straight Wall Body style:




                                                                       3.25mm,4.0
           Walled Certain Implants
            Full Osseotite Parallel




                                                                       mm,
                                                                       5.0mm,
                                                                       6.00mm
12
                                                                       L: 8.5mm,
                                                                       10mm,
                                                           Figure 32   11.5mm,
                                                                       13mm,
                                                                       15mm
                                                                       D: 4.0mm,
          Straight Wall Body style:
           Implants 4/5(P) & 5/6(P)




                                                                       5.0mm
            Osseotite XP Certain




                                                                       L: 8.5mm,
                                                                       10mm,
13                                                                     11.5mm,
                                                                       13mm,
                                                                       15mm

                                                           Figure 33




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 22
                                                                     D: 4.0mm,




          Straight Wall Body style:
          Full Osseotite XP Certain
           Implants 4/5(P) & 5/6(P)
                                                                     5.0mm

                                                                     L: 8.5mm,
                                                                     10mm,
14                                                                   11.5mm,13
                                                                     mm, 15mm

                                                         Figure 34


                                                                     D: 3.25mm,
              Osseotite Parallel Walled Implants
              Straight Wall Body style:



                                                                     3.75mm,
                                                                     4.0mm,
                                                                     5.0mm,
                                                                     6.0mm

                                                                     L:
                                                                     8.5mm,10.0
15                                                                   mm,
                                                                     11.5mm,
                                                        Figure 35
                                                                     13mm,
                                                                     15mm,
                                                                     18mm,
                                                                     20mm (for
                                                                     D=3.75mm,
                                                                     4.0mm)

                                                                     D: 3.25mm,
              Full Osseotite Parallel Walled Implants
              Straight Wall Body style:




                                                                     3.75mm,
                                                                     4.0mm,
                                                                     5.0mm,
                                                                     6.0mm

                                                                     L: 7.0mm,
                                                                     8.5mm,
16                                                                   10.0mm,
                                                                     11.5mm,
                                                                     13.0mm,
                                                                     15.0mm,
                                                        Figure 36    18.0mm(for
                                                                     D=3.25mm)
                                                                     & 20mm
                                                                     (for
                                                                     D=4.0mm)




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 23
                                                   D: 3.25mm,




         3/4(P), 4/5(P), 5/6(P)
         Osseotite XP Implants
         Straight Wall Body style:
                                                   4.0mm,
                                                   5.0mm

                                                   L: 8.5mm,
17                                                 10.0mm,
                                                   11.5mm,
                                                   13.0mm,
                                                   15.0mm
                                       Figure 37


                                                   D: 3.25mm,
          3/4(P), 4/5(P), 5/6(P)
          Full Osseotite XP Implants
          Straight Wall Body style:



                                                   4.0mm,
                                                   5.0mm

                                                   L: 7.0mm,
                                                   8.5mm,
18
                                                   10.0mm,
                                                   11.5mm,
                                                   13.0mm,
                                                   15.0mm,
                                       Figure 38   18.0mm(for
                                                   D=3.25mm)
                                                   D: 3.25mm,
          NanoTite Certain PREVAIL




                                                   4.0mm
           Straight Wall Body style:




                                                   ,5.0mm

                                                   L: 8.5mm,    SF:
                    Implants




                                                   10mm,        1. Integrated Platform Switching
19
                                                   11.5mm,      To Aid In Crestal Bone
                                                   13mm,        Preservation.
                                                   15mm
                                       Figure 39
                                                                2. Surface extends up to the seating
                                                                Platform; increase Bone-To-
                                                                Implant-Contacts.
                                                   D: 3.25mm,
          PREVAIL Implants
          Osseotite Certain
          Straight Wall Bodystyle:




                                                   4.0mm,       3. Certain QuickSeat® Connection
                                                   5.0mm        Produces An Audible And Tactile
                                                   L: 8.5mm,    Click Confirming Proper Seating
                                                   10mm,
20                                                 11.5mm,
                                                   13mm,
                                                   15mm
                                       Figure 40




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 24
                                                             D: 3.25mm,




                       Certain® Implants
                       NanoTite™ Tapered
                       Tapered Body style:
                                                             4.0mm,
                                                             5.0mm,       SF:
                                                             6.0mm        1. Designed for primary stability
   21                                                                     and accurate placement.
                                                             L: 8.5mm,
                                                             10mm,        2. Bone Taps and Implants
                                                             11.5mm,      engineered to provide accurate
                                                             13mm,        osteotomy creation and implant
                                                 Figure 41
                                                             15mm         placement.
                                                             D: 3.25mm,
                       style:
                       NanoTite™ Tapered Body
                       Tapered Body style:



                                                             4.0mm,       3. Uniform thread design and an
NanoTite™ Tapered ®
 ImplantsNanoTite™




                                                                          intimate fit within the bone, initial
  Tapered ® Implants




                                                             5.0mm,
                                                             6.0mm        bone-to-implant contact improved
                                                                          to establish primary stability.
   22                                                        L: 8.5mm,
                                                             10mm,        4. Tapered Implant approximates
                                                             11.5mm,      the shape of a natural tooth.
                                                             13mm,
                                                 Figure 42
                                                             15mm

                                                             D: 3.25mm,   SF:
                       Certain Implants
                       Osseotite™ Tapered
                       Tapered Body style:




                                                             4.0mm,       1. Approximates The Shape Of A
                                                             5.0mm ,      Natural Tooth Root.
                                                             6.0mm
                                                                          2. Thread Design (Angle, Depth
   23
                                                             L: 8.5mm,    And Pitch) produces An Anchoring
                                                             10mm,        “Bite-In-Bone” Response.
                                                             11.5mm,
                                                 Figure 43   13mm,        3. Domed Apical End, Which
                                                             15mm         Reduces Trauma When
                                                             D: 3.25mm,   approximating Vital Structures.
                       Certain Implants
                       Full Osseotite™ Tapered
                       Tapered Body style:




                                                             4.0mm,
                                                             5.0mm,       4. Spiral Incremental Cutting Edge
                                                             6.0mm        allows; Self Tapping while the
                                                                          cupped recesses act as repositories
   24                                                        L: 8.5mm,    for bone shavings/growth factors.
                                                             10mm,
                                                             11.5mm,      I:
                                                 Figure 44   13mm,        1. Immediate And Accelerated
                                                             15mm         Loading Protocols.

                                                             D: 3.25mm,   2. Immediate Placement In
                       Tapered Body style:




                                                                          Extraction Sockets.
                       Osseotite™ Tapered




                                                             4.0mm,
                                                             5.0mm,
                                                                          3. Sites With Convergent Roots Of
                            Implants




                                                             6.0mm
   25                                                                     Adjacent Teeth.
                                                             L: 8.5mm,
                                                             10mm,        4. Cases With Ridge Concavities.
                                                             11.5mm,
                                                             13mm,        5. Simultaneous Grafted Sites And
                                                 Figure 45
                                                             15mm         Implant Placement.


  A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
  PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 25
                                                                                                    D: 3.25mm,




                                                Full Osseotite™ Tapered
                                                                                                    4.0mm,       6. Implant Placement With Sinus




                                                 Tapered Body style:
                                                                                                    5.0mm,       Lift Procedures.
                                                                                                    6.0mm


                                                        Implants
                                                                                                                 7. Soft Bone (Type IV)
26                                                                                                  L: 8.5mm,
                                                                                                    10mm,
                                                                                                    11.5mm,
                                                                                                    13mm,
                                                                                        Figure 46   15mm

                                                                                                    D: 4.1mm,    SF:
                                                                                                    5.0mm,       1. Discrete Crystalline Deposition
                                                                                                    5.8mm        of nano-scale calcium phosphate.
                                                                                                                 Demonstrated an improved rate and
                                                                                                    L: 8.5mm,    extent osseointegration
                                                     Tapered Certain PREVAIL Implants




                                                                                                    10mm,
                                                      Tapered Body style: Nanotite™




                                                                                                    11.5mm,      2. Thread angle, depth and pitch
                                                                                                    13mm,        produce an anchoring “bite in
                                                                                                    15mm         bone” response, establishing
                                                                                                                 primary stability.

27                                                                                                               3. Reformation of biologic width
                                                                                                                 allows for crestal bone preservation
                                                                                                                 around the implant.
                                                                                        Figure 47                I:
                                                                                                                 The addition of PREVAIL Platform
                                                                                                                 Switching Feature to the NanoTite
                                                                                                                 Tapered Implant is designed to help
                                                                                                                 clinicians pursue the preservation
                                                                                                                 of crestal bone and soft tissue,
                                                                                                                 allowing for optimal aesthetic
                                                                                                                 outcomes.

                                                                                                    D: 3.0mm,    SF:
     KeyStone; Burlington; Massachusetts [38]




                                                                                                    3.5mm,       1. Designed for strength, offers
                                                                                                    4.1mm,       stability and security in implant
                                                                                                    5.0mm        placement.
                                                              PrimaSolo (One-piece)




                                                                                                    L: 10.0mm    2. Parallel walled section increases
                                                                                                    (not for     primary implant stability.
                                                                                                    D=3.0mm),
                                                                                                    11.5mm       3. Threads and cutting flutes,
28
                                                                                                    (not for     reduced insertion torques to
                                                                                                    D=3.0mm),    minimize trauma while maintaining
                                                                                                    13.0mm,      implant stability.
                                                                                                    15.0mm
                                                                                        Figure 48   (not for     I:
                                                                                                    D=5.0mm)     For use in the treatment of missing
                                                                                                                 maxillary lateral incisors or
                                                                                                                 mandibular central and lateral
                                                                                                                 incisors.



A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 26
                                                  D: 3.5mm,    SF:




            PrimaConnex (Tapered)
                                                  4.1mm,       1. Parallel walled section increases
                                                  5.0mm        primary implant stability.

                                                  L: 10.0mm,   2. Direct-drive implant delivery
29
                                                  11.5mm,      eliminated placement head.
                                                  13.0mm,
                                                  15.0mm       I:
                                                               For partially or fully endentulous
                                      Figure 49
                                                               patients
                                                  D: 3.3mm,    SF:
            PrimaConnex (Straight)



                                                  4.0mm,       1. Direct-drive implant delivery
                                                  5.0mm        eliminates placement head.

                                                  L: 8.0mm
                                                  (not for
30                                                D=3.0mm),
                                                  10.0mm,
                                                  11.5mm,
                                                  13.0mm,
                                     Figure 50
                                                  15.0mm
                                                  (not for
                                                  D=5.0mm)
                                                  D: 3.3mm,    SF:
                                                  3.75mm,      1. Wide Diameter (WD) provides
                                                  4.0mm,       79% more surface area, offering
                                                  5.0mm,       maximum strength and resistance to
                                                  6.0mm        deformation.

                                                  L: 8.0mm,    2. WD maximizes overall
                                                  10.0mm,      performance when interacting with
                                                  11.5mm,      compressive occlusal forces, off-
            Restore




                                                  13.0mm,      axis occlusal force and torsional
31
                                                  15.0mm       forces.

                                     Figure 51
                                                               3. Small diameter is an excellent
                                                               choice when inter-proximal space is
                                                               limited.

                                                               I:
                                                               Small diameter; ideal for single
                                                               tooth restorations due to its
                                                               increased strength.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 27
                                            D:             SF:
                                            3.75mm,4.5     1. Tapered design enables
                                            mm             placement near impinging
                                                           anatomical structures while
                                            L: 10.0mm,     prosthetic table diameter for natural


            Renova (Tapered)
                                            11.5mm,        emergence profile.
                                            13mm,
                                            14.5mm         2. Coated with roughened titanium
32
                                            (for           surface, with biocompatible
                                            D=3.75mm)      calcium phosphate ceramic media
                                            , 8.5mm,       to ensure safety and biological
                                            10.0mm,        compatibility.
                                Figure 52
                                            11.5mm &
                                            13mm (for      3. Higher bone-implant contact
                                            D=4.5mm)       giving 250% more surface area.

                                            D:3.75mm,      SF:
                                            4.75mm         1. Coated with roughened titanium
            Renova (Straight)




                                                           surface, with biocompatible
                                            L:             calcium phosphate ceramic media
                                            8.0mm,10.0     to ensure safety and biological
33
                                            mm,            compatibility.
                                            11.5mm,
                                            13mm,          2. Higher bone-implant contact
                                Figure 53
                                            16mm           giving 250% more surface area.

                                            D:3.3mm,       SF:
                                            4.1mm,         1. Designed to simplify implant
                                            4.8mm,         procedure for both clinician and the
                                            5.5mm,         patient. Eliminating the need for a
                                            6.3mm          second surgery, treatment chair
                                                           time and patient trauma are
                                            L: 8.0mm,      reduced.
                                            10.0mm,
                                            12.0mm,        2. Provides aesthetics results.
                                            14.0mm,
            Stage 1




                                            16.0mm         3. Locking Morse Taper connection
34
                                            (for           provides superior strength and
                                            D=4.1mm,       prosthetic stability.
                                            4.8mm),
                                            6.3mm only     4. Tissue level prosthetic
                                Figure 54   available in   connection improves visibility
                                            8.0mm &        during abutment seating.
                                            10.0mm in
                                            length         5. Smooth contoured neck for
                                                           natural emergence profile and soft
                                                           tissue management.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 28
                                                                                           D:3.5mm,     SF:
                                                                                           3.9mm        1. Double lead threads offer high




                                       Nobel Active Implant
                                                                                                        initial stability
                                                                                           L: 8.5mm,
                                                                                           10mm,        2. The 2 reverse-cutting flutes when
35
                                                                                           11.5mm,      turning will gradually widen the
                                                                                           13.0mm,      osteomy.
                                                                                           15.0mm,
                                                                              Figure 55    18.0mm

                                                                                           D:3.5mm,     SF:
                                                                                           4.3mm,       1. Collar designed for soft and hard
                                                                                           5.0mm,       tissue integration.
                                                                                           6.0mm        2. Thread groove design to help
                                                                                                        bone forms faster within the
                                                                                           L:           grooves.
                                                                                           8.0mm,10.0   3. Apical part is tapered and
                                                                                           mm,          coronal part is parallel, thus allows
                                                                                           13.0mm,      for placement in both extraction
                                                                                           16.0mm       sockets and healed sites.
                                                    Nobel Replace (Tapered)




                                                                                                        4. Tapered design reduce stresses
     Nobel Biocare; Switzerland [39]




                                                                                                        due to off-axis loading.
                                                                                                        5. TiUnite; highly crystalline and
                                                                                                        phosphate-enriched titanium oxide
36
                                                                                                        surface, enhance osseointegration,
                                                                              Figure 56                 and positively influence soft and
                                                                                                        hard tissue interfaces.

                                                                                                        I:
                                                                                                        1. Narrow platform - suitable for
                                                                                                        limited interdental space and
                                                                                                        insufficient alveolar bone to
                                                                                                        support a regular platform implant.
                                                                                                        2. Regular platform - for single
                                                                                                        anterior tooth replacement and full-
                                                                                                        arch restorative solutions.
                                                                                                        3. Wide platform 6.0mm - for wide
                                                                                                        ridges and the posterior region.
                                                                                           D:3.5mm,     SF:
                                                                                           4.0mm,       1. Parallel drilling protocol.
                                                                                           5.0mm,       2. Improve bone engagement and
                                                                                           6.0mm        facilitate installation in small
                                                    Nobel Speedy Replace




                                                                                                        diameter preparations.
                                                                                           L: 10.0mm,   3. It features TiUnite and groovy
                                                                                           11.5mm,      for enhanced osseointegration and
                                                                                           13.0mm,      soft tissue response.
37
                                                                                           15.0mm,18.
                                                                                           0mm          I:
                                                                                                        1. Increase initial stability in soft
                                                                                                        bone.
                                                                               Figure 57
                                                                                                        2. For under-prepared sited in softer
                                                                                                        bone and it offers an exceptionally
                                                                                                        high initial stability in all bone
                                                                                                        conditions.
A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 29
                                                          D:3.3mm,    SF:
                                                          3.75mm,     1. Self-cutting parallel-walled
                                                          4.0mm,      designed for versatility, reliability
                                                          5.0mm       and simplicity.
                                                                      2. Branemark System MK III
                                                          L: 7-18mm   implants are especially suited for
                                                                      dense bone, and are efficient for
                          Branemark System                            dense bone mandibular
                                                                      reconstructions.

                                                                      I:
38
                                                                      1. Ideal for dense bone.
                                                                      2. Mk III indicated for hard bone.
                                                                      3. MK IV implant with slightly
                                              Figure 58               tapered body for better initial
                                                                      stability in soft bone.
                                                                      4. Brånemark System Zygoma for
                                                                      complex cases with extreme bone
                                                                      resorption and used in
                                                                      indications where immediate
                                                                      function is possible.

                                                          D:3.5mm,    SF:                     I:
                                                          4.0mm,      1. Dual thread of       1. Indicated for
                                                          4.5mm,      Micro and Macro         use in partially
                                                          5.0mm       minimizing bone         or fully
                                                                      resorption and          edentulous
                                                          L: 7.0mm    optimal stress          mandibles and
                                                          (not        distribution.           maxillae, in
                                                          available   Excellent initial       support of
                                                          for         bonding and long        single or
                                                          D=3.5mm),   term stability.         multiple-unit
     Osstem; Korea [40]




                                                          8.5mm,                              restorations.
                                                          10.0mm,     2. Body design
                          GS System




                                                          11.5mm,     with superior           2. US/SS/GS
39                                                        13.0mm,     initial bonding         Fixture System
                                                          15.0mm      stability, facilitate   is for one and
                                                                      placement depth         two stage
                                                                      adjustment.             surgical
                                             Figure 59
                                                                                              procedures. It
                                                                      3. 4-bladed             is not for
                                                                      cutting edge with       immediate
                                                                      excellent self-         load.
                                                                      tapping force.

                                                                      4. CellNest
                                                                      surface facilitates
                                                                      osseointegration
                                                                      period.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 30
                                     D: 3.3mm,     1. Facilitate
                                     4.0, 4.1mm,   placement
                                     4.5mm,        applicable to
                                     4.8mm,        various bone
                                     6.0mm,        quality and obtain
                                     7.0mm         superior bonding
                                                   stability.
                                     L: 7.0mm      2. SS II; Easy to
                                     (not          secure early
                                     available     stabilization and
            SS                       for           control implanted
40
          System                     D=3.3mm),     bone depth,
                                     8.5mm,        especially for
                                     10.0mm,       loading
                                     11.5mm,       immediately.
                                     13.0mm &      3 Excellent for
                         Figure 60   15.0mm        distributing stress.
                                     (not          Especially for
                                     available     securing early
                                     for           stabilization in
                                     6&7mm)        poor quality bone.
                                     D:            1. US II; Easy to
                                     3.3mm,3.75    control implanted
                                     mm,           bone depth.
                                     4.0mm,        Convenient for
                                     5.0mm,        prosthetics with
                                     5.5mm         its feature of
                                                   external hexagon
                                     L: 7.0mm      connection.
                                     (not          2. US III;
                                     available     Excellent for
                                     for           distributing stress.
            US System




                                     D=3.3mm),     Especially good
41                                   8.5mm,        for securing early
                                     10.0mm,       stabilization in
                                     11.5mm,       poor quality bone.
                                     13.0mm,       3. US II Plus;
                                     15.0mm        Increased
                                                   osseointegration
                        Figure 61                  in the cortical
                                                   bone, expanded
                                                   contact area with
                                                   the bone, and
                                                   decreased
                                                   marginal bone
                                                   loss.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 31
                                                                        D: 3.3mm,
                                                                        4.1mm,
                                                                        4.8mm         SF:
                                                                                      1. The pioneer in one-stage or
                                                                        L: 6.0mm      transgingival healing.


                                        Standard Implant
                                                                        (only         2. Smooth neck section - Optimized
                                                                        available     tulip shape for transgingival one-
                                                                        for 4.1mm),   stage surgical protocol.
42
                                                                        8.0mm,        3. Optimized thread design -
                                                                        10.0mm,       Ensures optimal primary and
                                                           Figure 62
                                                                        12.0mm,       secondary stability.
                                                                        14.0mm,
                                                                        16.0mm        I:
                                                                        (not          In all dental implantology
                                                                        available
                                                                        for 4.8mm)
                                                                        D: 4.8mm,     SF:
                                                                        6.5mm         1. Neck height of 1.8 mm, offer
     Straumann; Switzerland/




                                                                                      additional options in implant
                                                                        L: 6.0mm,     insertion.
           Basel [41]




                                                                        8.0mm,        2. Option of letting implant heal
                                                                        10.0mm &      trans-, semi- or subgingivally, thus
                               Standard Plus




                                                                        12.0mm        the flexibility need for effective
                                                                                      tissue management.
43                                                                                    3.1.8 mm neck height designed to
                                                                                      optimize aesthetics and emergence
                                                                                      profile.

                                                                                      I:
                                                            Figure 63
                                                                                      For trans-, semi- or subgingival
                                                                                      implant placement in the esthetic
                                                                                      region and when limited space is an
                                                                                      issue.
                                                                        D: 3.3mm      SF:
                                                                        ,4.1mm        1. Point 1 to 3 same as “Standard
                                                                                      Plus”
                               Tapered Effect




                                                                        L: 8.0mm,     2. Self-tapping thread with reduced
                                                                        10.0mm,       pitch for particularly gentle
44                                                                      12.0mm,       insertion and reliable primary
                                                                        14.0mm        stability.

                                                                                      I:
                                                            Figure 64                 The specialist for immediate and
                                                                                      early implantation.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 32
                                                                               D: 3.7mm,    SF:
                                                                               4.1mm,       1. Tapered enhanced primary
                                                                               4.7mm,       stability, facilitates implant
                                                                               6.0mm        placement between convergent


                               Tapered screw-vent implant system
                                                                                            roots, and in immediate extraction
                                                                               L:           sites.
                                                                               8.0mm,10.0
                                                                               mm,          2. Thread: allows for full seating of
                                                                               11.5mm,      implant in a third of the time.
                                                                               13.0mm,16.
45
                                                                               0mm          3. Self-tapping design and triple-
                                                                                            lead
                                                                   Figure 65                threads enable faster insertion

                                                                                            4. MTX, increased bone apposition.
     Zimmer Dentals; Poland/




                                                                                            MP-1 HA, increases average
                                                                                            crystalline content of the HA from
         Warsaw [45]




                                                                                            77% to > 90%, greater coating
                                                                                            stability

                                                                               D: 3.0mm,    SF:
                                                                               3.7mm,       1. Greater simplicity and
                                                                               4.7mm        convenience to the restoration
                                                                                            process.
                                                                               L: 10.0mm,   2. Solution for fast, convenient
                               Zimmer one piece implant




                                                                               11.5mm,      immediate restoration with minimal
                                                                               13.0mm,      or no abutment preparation.
                                                                               16.0mm       3. Multi-lead threads enable faster
                                                                               (Avialable   insertion while maintaining
46
                                                                               for 3.7mm    implant stability
                                                                               only)
                                                                                            I:
                                                                   Figure 66                1. 3.0mm Zimmer One-Piece
                                                                                            Implant, indicated for small incisor
                                                                                            locations.
                                                                                            2. 3.7mm and 4.7mm Zimmer One-
                                                                                            Piece Implant are indicated for all
                                                                                            tooth locations.




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 33
                                                                D: 3.7mm,    SF:
                                                                4.7mm        1. Single-stage minimizes chair
                                                                             time and lessens patient trauma.
                                                                L: 8.0mm,    2. Immediate loading protocol
                                                                10.0mm,      gives patients function and
                                                                13.0mm,      aesthetics with as little as 1 visit.
                                                                16.0mm       3. Tapered design enhances initial
                        Advent Implant System                                stability, internal hex connection
                                                                             with friction-fit abutments provide
                                                                             added confidence during
                                                                             restoration.
47
                                                                             4. Self-tapping eliminates the need
                                                                             to pre-tap surgical site, thus
                                                                             reduced chair time.
                                                    Figure 67
                                                                             5. Has both MTX surface and MP-1
                                                                             HA surface.

                                                                             I:
                                                                             The wide platform Advent implant
                                                                             is a great option for use in posterior
                                                                             cases and for overdenture
                                                                             restorations.
                                                                D: 3.25mm,
                                                                4.0mm,
                        Spline Reliance Cylinder




                                                                5.0mm

                                                                L: 8.0mm,
                                                                10.0mm,
48                                                              13.0mm,
                                                                15.0mm,18.
                                                                0mm (not
                                                                available
                                                                for D
                                                   Figure 68
                                                                =5.0mm)

                                                                D: 3.75mm,   SF:
                                                                5.0mm        1. Self-tapping spiral flutes reduce
                                                                             surgical time and direct bone chips
           Spline Twist Implant




                                                                L:           up and away from the cutting edge.
                                                                8.0mm,10.0
                                                                mm,        2. MP-1 HA surface provides a
49
                                                                11.5mm,    scaffold for bone growth and
                                                                13.0mm,    allows for secure bone apposition.
                                                                15.0mm,
                                                                18.0mm
                                                   Figure 69    (only for
                                                                D=3.75mm)




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 34
                                             D: 3.7mm,    SF:
                                             4.8mm        1.8mmL Lead (Double-Lead




            Tapered SwissPlus
                                                          Thread)




                 Implant
                                             L:
50                                           8.0mm,10.0
                                             mm,
                                             12.0mm,
                                 Figure 70   14.0mm

                                             D: 4.1mm,    SF:
                                             4.8mm        1.2mmL Lead (Single-Lead
            Straight SwissPlus



                                                          Thread)
                  Implant




                                             L: 8.0mm,
51                                           10.0mm,
                                             12.0mm,
                                             14.0mm
                                 Figure 71

Table 2: List of commercial dental implant models


2.2 Comparison of different parameters range recommended

       Parameters           The recommended reading                 Not recommended
Diameter                         4.0mm and 4.5 mm                 <3.75mm and >5.0mm
Length                          >9.0mm and 14.0mm                 <10.0mm and >14.0mm
Thread Pitch                   > 0.8mm and >1.6mm                        <0.8mm
Thread Width                       0.19 ~ 0.23mm                           NA
Thread Height                   >0.44mm, at 0.46mm                         NA
Thread Shape                Square thread shape filleted                   NA
                                  with small radius,
                                     Trapezoidal
Threading Type                      Double thread                          NA
Implant Shape                  Rectangular, Tapered,                   Rectangular
                            Stepped cylindrical, Screw-
                                       shaped,
Implant material                      Titanium                             NA
Neck                             Retention Element                         NA
Table 3: Recommended and not recommended parameters

2.3 Evaluation of research models.

The studies on research models have shown the importance of dental implant geometric
factors that will highly affected the success rate of implantation and stability. The
geometric parameters for instances are diameter, length, thread pitch, width and height,
thread shape, implant shape and material as well as it surface.

The studies shown diameter to have impact on the implant stability and reduces stresses.
Diameter is important to more homogeneous and efficient stress distributions. FEA study
reviews by increasing the diameter better dissipation the masticatory forces and decreases
stress around the implant neck. Clinically diameter affect the level of stability, and
increasing diameter increases the contact area between implant and bone thus, better
stability. [14] [22] [1] [24] [16] [2]

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 35
Length plays a major party in reducing the bone stress and enhances implant stability in
type IV bone. With the increase of length, there is a tendency to reduce maximum stress in
implant and also decreasing strain. [1] [24]

Literature study has also showed by adding retention elements at the implant neck, the
marginal bone are well preserved. The interfacial shear stresses are significantly changed
with the addition of retention elements, and the axial load an implant can support increases.
In addition, the retention element correlates to the implant length. Where theoretically, it
improves the stress distributions and fracture resistance of the wider implants. Therefore
eliminates the need of narrow implants in many situations. [23] [21]

Thread parameter such as pitch, depth and thickness are the various geometric patterns that
would determine the functional thread surface, affecting the biomechanical load
distribution of the implants. With the increase of thread pitch and depth among individual
thread, the contact areas improves between bone and implant; this modifies the
biomechanical properties of a screw-shape implant. The availability of functional area is
better with greater depth. The thread pitch favors for the stress distribution in cancellous
bone, and play a great role in protecting dental implant under the axial load. Where pitch
used in implant are also an effective way of reducing maximum effective stress. The thread
pitch and shape greatly influences the primary implant stability and biomechanical nature
of bone-implant interface after the healing process. [7] [4]

Implant using of double thread increase the initial stability and reduces the chair time of
implantation. The time taken for osseointegration of bone and implant may also be
increased. Furthermore the implant body shape and shapes of the thread are also importance
factors for implant stability as well as functional contact area. [6] [18]

The material and surface of an implant are important factors for the safety as well as the
biological compatibility. [13]

2.4 Evaluation of commercial models.

Studies made on the commercial models, shows the dental implant companies to
manufacture a ranges of diameter and length in order to cater for the needs of different
patients. Factors such as the location of implantation, amount of bone present and the bone
density; are the importance factors to consider when deciding which implant size to be used
on patients.

The commercial models from different companies have also introduced its own threading,
material, surface, shape design. Each model has its own uniqueness in providing the
optimal result for patients.

Information studied from the commercial models show a range of available designs. For
instance Bicon; has a sloping shoulder design on the implant, to enhances crestal bone
preservation and offers a natural looking gingival aesthetics. BioHorizons has its own
unique surface material; Laser-Lok to oriented connective tissue attachment from the
implant to bone tissue. Biomet3i uses of a Nanometer-scale “Discrete Crysalline Deposition
of Calcium Phosphate” to create a more complex surface topography so as to create a bone
bonding surface. Keystone offers a unique threads and cutting flutes designed for the
reduction of insertion torques to minimize trauma and yet maintaining the implant stability.
Keystone also offer a wide diameter design to provides 79% more surface area and
providing maximum strength and resistance to deformation. Nobel Biocare employs the
double thread design to offer high initial stability, and the thread grooves allow bone tissue
to forms faster within the grooves. The tapered designed is used to reduce stresses due to

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 36
the off-axis loading. Osstem has implants composed of trapezoidal thread in addition to an
internal octagon connection double tapered body, thus the design is excellent for
distributing stress. Staumann designed a self-tapping thread with reduced pitch so to
introduce gentle insertion of the implant and offer a reliable primary stability. Zimmer
Dentals offer a self-tapping spiral flutes model to reduce surgical time and has a unique
MP-1HA surface to facilitate a scaffold for bone growth and secure bone apposition. [30]
[31] [32] [38] [39] [40] [41] [45]

2.5 Propose of new conceptual prototype design

Studying of both commercial and research models with the tabulated optimal parameters,
thus, the new conceptual dental implant prototype design will have the parameters as such;
diameter of 4.0mm, total length of 11.0mm, thread pitch of 1.8mm, thread width of
0.21mm, thread height of 0.46mm, Trapezoidal thread and double threaded, 1.0mm of
retention element at the neck area, dental implant material using of commercially pure
titanium Ti6Al4V and surface coated with calcium phosphate as shown on figure 1.




                Figure 72: New conceptual prototype dental implant design

Time limitation is the most common problem faced during the project period. As a student
during the night and working full time during the day, project time is cut short by at least
60% comparing to a full time student. There are many articles written by researchers and
investigation performed on dental implants. However, not all the articles are relevant to the
project. Therefore, filtering the correct article and not lagged behind time is very crucial.

Once the research models and commercial model had been studies and identify the
important parameters for a good dental implant, the prototype is designed using the
software Pro-E as shown on figure 2. As the design is a double thread and Pro-E does not
have the auto drawing function to created double thread. Therefore thread pitch of 1.8mm is
divided by half in order to notify Pro-E to have the pitch at 0.9mm, giving the double pitch
at 1.8mm. Please note the conceptual prototype thread shown in figure 2 is a sharp
threading instead of a trapezoidal shape, as the Pro-E system is unable to handle the
trapezoidal shape design. When the dental implant is develops, raw material for the dental
implant model is searched. Finally polymer clay is decided to be used for the modelling, as
it is often used for modelling in the art district and the shape is changeable before the final
heating process. Then again, the modelling of dental implant was never easy. To knead the
clay into the exact shape of length 11.0mm and diameter of 4.0mm slightly tapered. When
creating the pitch for the model, it was a big challenge. The scaling has to be exact and the
shape of the thread has to be place correctly on the scale. Multiply attempts had to be
carried out, for the polymer clay snaps easily when handling is not careful. As the clay
model is still in the soft stage, deformation of the thread happened frequently. The final
modelling of the clay polymer is as shown on figure 3.

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 37
       Figure 73: Pro-E System                 Figure 74: Conceptual Prototype design


                                           3. Result
Under research models a total of 20 FEA cases were collected, however for the actual
dental implant images only 2 models were shown. 8 Dental implant companies were
studied for it dental implant design, with a total of 51 types of dental implant collected.
However, images of FEA were not shown on the dental implant company website.

Elements used in the FEA method were often Tetrahedron, Quadrilateral and Hexahedron.
Tetrahedron and Hexahedron was used for the 3D analysis and Quadrilateral was used in
2D analysis. This reveals 3D analyses are much more commonly used for a dental implant
FEA research. The number of nodes and elements to be used on each individual dental
implant model depends on the quantitative analysis required from each user. With an
increase of nodes and elements, the time to process the analysis would be longer however
the result may not be significant as compare to a 2D analysis. Material properties; Young
modulus and Possion ratio are used in FEA for the analysis of stress and strains on the
dental implant and the simulated bone environment.

Research models have revealed a range of optimal results for the dental implant geometric
parameters. The optimal range for the diameter is known at >3.75mm and <5.0mm. With a
diameter more than 5.0mm, stress increasingly builds on the bone tissue resulting in higher
failure rate. Least stress reduction is seemed at 3.75mm and the optimal result is shown on
a diameter of 4.5mm.

Optimal length was seen at >9.0mm and <14.0mm. Implant length shorter than 10.0mm do
not showed to alter the strain field. Increasing length would led to the decrease of Von
Mises Strain, at length of 14.0mm shows the greatest reduction. Beyond 14.0mm would
cause implants high failure rate and would be too long for the implantation.

Optimal biomechanical properties are display on thread height exceeding of 0.44mm, and
width of 0.19-0.23mm. Research shows thread height at 0.46 has the maximum effective
stress at the lowest. Thread pitch greater than 0.8mm were the optimal selection for its
biomechanical consideration, however the implant with over sized pitch at >1.6mm are
believed to allow implant to thread faster into the osteotomy site.

The dental implant optimal material choice would be the commercial pure titanium of grade
5. Where it provides greater yield strength and fatigue properties. In nature, titanium
interacts well with the biological fluids and tissues, and has a certain level of surface
roughness that allows bone tissue to growth faster on the dental implant. The dental implant


A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 38
surface is coated with a layer of calcium phosphate to assist safety and biological
compatibility for speedy osseointegration.

Studying the commercial and research models, the tapered designed is found to yield
excellent bone response and harmonize with surrounding bone anatomically. It also reduces
drilling time and friction cause on the bone and dental implant. A rectangular dental
implant may offer more surface area and stability. However a tapered design produces
lower maximum stress and eases the drilling of a dental implant.

The neck area of a dental implant when implemented with a retention element is discovered
to have the abilities of preserving the marginal bone and changing the interfacial shear
stresses. The axial load an implant can support would also increases; the design of retention
element improves the stress distribution and fracture resistance in the wider dental implants
as well.


                                    4.      Discussion
3D FEA has been widely used on the analysis of dental implant as compared to the usage of
2D, for it quantitative evaluation of stresses on the dental implant and the surrounding
bone. However this does not dismiss the use of 2D FEA, each of its own area of
advantages.
Research models have reflects Tetrahedral as the most common element used for a 3D
FEA, and “ANSYS” the most common FEA program being used. On average the number
of elements and nodes used for a 3D analysis are 122,277 and 92,737 respectively. Where
else in a 2D analysis an average of 845 elements and 2,254 nodes are being used. This
results in the computation time differences of the 2D and 3D analysis, and the quantitative
outcome of a dental implant model.

FEA is a useful tool for predicting the effects of stresses on the implant and its surrounding
bone. The dental implant model is mesh into a set of smaller and simple domains of
elements, so as to calculate the stress and strains of an element. The elements are further
combine as a whole, to view the Von Mises Strain in one model. The modeling of a FEA
success is dependent on the assumptions made therefore influences the FEA result.
Examples of the assumption are as such; modeling of the bone and implant geometry,
material properties, boundary conditions and the interface between bone and implant. FEA
clearly predict the stress distribution of the implant in the cortical bone contact area, and in
the region of the implant apex in trabecular bone.
Employing FEA methods allow researchers to formulate the optimal design for a dental
implant, yielding higher success rate of the implantation in patients. A good dental implant
offers a permanent solution to teeth loss patient, where the use of dental implant improves
aesthetics appearance, better comfort, speech, increases self-esteem of the patient, eating is
also much convenient and eliminate the embarrassment caused by the removable dentures
and at the same time restoring facial skeletal structure. [8] [20]

The implant diameter is set at 4.0mm for it stability and width, for the width is much
acceptable in majority of the population and does not fracture the bone as easily as with a
5.0mm diameter implant. 4.0mm also has the factor of minimizing the stress and
displacement value to the implant and surrounding bone, most important of all a good
stability, as compare to diameter less than 3.75mm. [14] [22] [1] [24] [16] [2]
Length at 11.0mm may not display the optimal biomechanical properties as of 14.0mm,
however 11.0 of length once again is applicable to majority of the population. At 11.0mm
it’s able to reduced stress on trabecular and cortical bone and on implant for both

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 39
immediate and delayed loading. FEA test had also showed the stresses are lower after the
phase of osseointegration. [1] [24]
Thread replicating the shape of trapezoidal is chosen for it thickness at core diameter when
compare to a square thread. Trapezoidal thread provides larger surface area for
osseointegration and larger load carrying capacity. Leading to an increase of stability and
reducing implant failure rate.
A retention element of 1.0mm is added to the neck of the conceptual prototype design, for
its ability to preserve marginal bone and resistance to higher load. Which mean the implant
will be able to increase the axial load it can supports, and at the same time decreases the
peak interfacial shear stress. [23] [21]
The implant body shape is choose to be slightly tapered for it stability as compare to a
tapered implant. A rectangular shape may not be ideal for implant surgery although it has
proven to be much more stable and better stress distribution after osseointegration. A
tapered shape allows easy integration and lower maximum stress. Therefore, the implant
body shape is designed to be slightly tapered for easy integration, lowering maximum
stress, reduces friction and drilling time, and finally to harmonize with the surrounding
bone.
Implant is chosen to be manufacture using material of Titanium; Ti6Al4V commercially
pure titanium of grade 5 for it greater yield strength and resistance against fatigue. Titanium
properties are biocompatible with the body and it rough surface allow bone tissue to
integrate with implant easily, hence, an excellent choice for dental implant. The prototype
is also designed to be coated with a layer of calcium phosphate, which is not only cheaper
and easy to obtain but it is also absolutely safe and biocompatible. Calcium phosphate
assists faster osseointegration, healing and better fixation interaction between the bone and
implant, minimizing failure rate. [13]
Thread pitch, width and height are using the recommended optimal choice by the other
researchers, as analysis has shown with such parameter the stresses are decrease and
displacement value are minimised as well. [7] [4]


                                    5.      Summary

5.1 Conclusion

FEA has been a useful tool for predicting the effects of stresses on the implant and its
surrounding bone tissue. Researchers employing the use of FEA allow the formulation of
optimal dental implant design, yielding a higher success rate of the implantation for
patients. The use of FEA has proven it advantages in many ways; cost saving, reduces the
resources spend and enable user to rectify the dental implant model if analysis failed,
before the manufacturing of dental implant.

Research models reflect Tetrahedral as the most common element used for a 3D FEA, and
“ANSYS” as the most common FEA program being used. This is because “ANSYS” are
much easier to use as compare to other FEA programs, and user does not necessarily have
to understand mechanics or finite element to use the program; indicated by “ANSYS”
users. On average the number of elements and nodes used for a 3D analysis are 122,277
and 92,737 respectively. Where else in a 2D analysis on average 845 elements and 2,254
nodes are used. This results in the computation time different of the 2D and 3D analysis,
also the quantitative outcome of a dental implant model.

The conceptual prototype design is thought to excel better than the current commercial
dental implants, as literature review has proven the use of the optimal parameters to yield


A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 40
better stability, strength, excellent bone response and harmonize with the surrounding bone
tissue.
FEA is found to be able to predict points of failure on dental implant design from studying
stress distribution. From this process excellent implant product can be created. Through the
study of FEA in this project the conceptual prototype optimal design parameters were
obtained from recommendation by other researchers.

5.2 Future Research Work

The project was carried out based on the literature research of optimal parameters
recommended by other researchers and through commercial dental implant website. Every
optimal parameter was tabulated and designs for the used on the conceptual prototype
design, hence suggested for the future work, FEA studies to be carried out on the
conceptual prototype dental implant. To determine how well the conceptual prototype
functions in the simulated dental implant-bone environment. With the further research carry
out on the conceptual prototype design, analyzed and improvised the model accordingly so
as to integrated it into a functional commercial product.


                    6.     Critical Review and Reflections
The decision for taking up the project “A Review of Finite Element Analysis Models for
Dental Implant Designs and Propose a New Dental Implant Prosthetic” has been tough. As
I have not study FEA before but only heard of what the program is capable of, and the
knowledge on dental implant was briefly taught in one of the school modules. However the
opportunity to take up such a challenging project and at the same time to be able to broaden
my knowledge was not a chance to be missed.

In the initial stage of the project, I have to learn and understand what FEA is and how the
operation of a FEA is carried out, what are the crucial parameters to run a successful FEA?
How is FEA applied onto dental implant design and analysis, what are the links between
this two? It’s a lot of information to be absorbed within a short period of time. In spite of
this, I have great guidance from my supervisor who has guided me to some of the essential
books for understanding FEA and corrected my wrong concept of FEA from times to times.

The second problem faced during the project was when collecting data for dental implants.
A large amount of time had to spent in the search, especially on article that particularly
study on dental implant (root) using FEA. Articles have to be filter and not only that each
articles have to be carefully study to have a good understanding of dental implant with the
uses of FEA. Identifying the vital parameters that would affects a good dental implant
design, what are the optimal ranges to be used in order to have a great design for both the
patient and doctor needs.

Finding the correct and available program for designing the prototype is also a big problem.
Program such as Solidwork, Matlab and Pro-E need to be brought for its copyright, in order
to used the program. Despite this, a student trial version of the Pro-E was managed to be
found downloadable online. This solves the problem on designing the conceptual prototype,
however the material for moulding the dental implant has not been found. Initially the
moulding solution mixtures was consider, however without the conceptual prototype
template it was not possible. If to create a moulding template, time factor is not to my
benefits and lack of proper tools and laboratory. In the end polymer clay was decided to be
used for the handmade conceptual prototype, as the polymer clay is easy to be kneads into
any shape and sculpture to the design that I have in mind.

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 41
Besides, the polymer clay only needs to be heated in an oven to be solidification.
Considering the cost spends, polymer clay is cheaper and safer to be used, as compared to
the moulding solution mixture.

During the decision making on the use of optimal parameters, was advised by my
supervisor the range of diameter and length that I have proposed. In the beginning, diameter
was proposed to be at 4.5mm and length to be of 14.0mm as this was considered the
optimal biomechanical properties by the other researchers; as it produces the optimal
biomechanical properties.
However, the amount of bone presents in the teeth and the bone density of an average
patient have to be considered. A wider and longer dental implant may not provided an
excellent outcome to patients who have weaker bone density or lesser amount of bone
presents in their teeth, which will only results in fracture of the teeth or failure to performed
implantation. Thus, the diameter and length is narrow down to 4.0mm and 11.0mm
respectively. In order for the conceptual prototype design to excels in the majority
population.

To complete the project, a lot of self-discipline and determinations is very well needed.
Planning of the project schedule and to carry it out on time, if any of these ingredients is
missing the project would not be able to complete in time.



                                    7.      References
Journal:

[1]    Basile Georgiopoulos; Konstantinos Kalioras; Christopher Provatidis; Marianthi
       Manda; Petros Koidis, “The Effects of Implant Length And Diameter Prior To
       And After Osseointegration: A 2-D Finite Element Analysis.” Journal of Oral
       Implantology, Vol. XXXIII/No. Five, 2007
[2]    Eric P. Holmgren, MS Robert J. Seckinger, DMD, MDS Leslie M. Kilgren, PhD
       Francis Mante, DMD, PhD, “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.” Journal of Oral Implantology,1998.
[3]    Gary R. O’Brien, DDS, Aron Gonshor, PhD, DDS, Alan Balfour, BSBE, “A 6-Year
       Prospective Study of 620 Stress-Diversion Surface (SDS) Dental Implants.”
       Journal of Oral Implantology, 2004.
[4]    H.-J. CHUN, S.-Y. CHEONG, J.-H. HAN, S.-J. HEO, J.-P. CHUNG, I.-C.
       RHYU, Y.-C. CHOI, H.-K. BAIK, Y. KU & M.-H. KIM, “Evaluation of design
       parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis.”
       Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2002 29; 565–574
[5]    Jae-Hoon Lee,DDS,MS, Val Frias,DDS,MS, Keun-Woo Lee,DDS,MSc,PhD,
       andRobert F.Wright,DDS, “Effect of Implant Size and Shape On Implant
       Success Rates: A Literature Review.” J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:377-81.
[6]    Jai-bong Lee, Byung-nam Hwang, Seong-Hyun Yoo, Chul-jin Byun, Seok-Kyu
       Choi, “Domestic Self-tapping Fixture and 3-dimensional Finite Element
       Analysis Comparative Analysis of the Mechanical Stability of the Double
       Threaded Fixture.” Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Department of
       mechanical engineering, Ajou University

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 42
[7]     Jianhua Ao, TaoLi , YanpuLiu, YinDing, GuofengWu, KaijinHua, LiangKong ,
       “Optimal Design of Thread Height and Width On An Immediately Loaded
       Cylinder Implant: A Finite Element Analysis.” Comput. Biol. Med. (2010),
       doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2009.10.007
[8]    Jian-Ping Geng, BDS, MSD, Keson B. C. Tan, BDS (Hons), MSD, and Gui-Rong
       Liu, PhD, “Application of Finite Element Analysis In Implant Dentistry: A
       Review Of The Literature.” THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY,
       VOLUME 85 NUMBER6, JUNE 2001
[9]    J. P. Geng, BDS, DrPH, MScD W. Xu, BEng, PhD K. B. C. Tan, BDS, MSD G. R.
       Liu, PhD, “Finite Element Analysis of An Osseointegrated Stepped Screw
       Dental Implant.” Journal of Oral Implantology, 2004
[10]   J. P. GENG, Q. S. MA, W. XU, K. B. C. TAN & G.R. LIU, “Finite Element
       Analysis of Four Thread-Form Configurations In A Stepped Screw Implant”
       Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2004 31; 233–239
[11]   Liang Kong , Yunzhuan Zhao , Kaijin Hua, Dehua Li , Hongzhi Zhou , Ziyan Wu,
       Baolin Liu, “Selection Of The Implant Thread Pitch For Optimal
       Biomechanical Properties: A three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.”
       Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 474–478
[12]   Lisa A. Lang, DDS, MS, Byungsik Kang, BS, MS, PhD, Rui-Feng Wang, BS, and
       Brien R. Lang, DDS, MS, “Finite Element Analysis To Determine Implant
       Preload.” THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, VOLUME 90
       NUMBER 6, DECEMBER 2003
[13]   L. Le Gu´ehennec, A. Soueidan, P. Layrolle, Y. Amouriq, “Surface Treatments of
       Titanium Dental Implants for Rapid Osseointegration.” Dental Materials 23
       ( 2007) 844–854
[14]   Lucie Himmlova´, MD, PhD, Tat’jana Dosta´lova´, MD, PhD, Alois Ka´covsky´,
       and Svatava Konvic˘kova´, PhD, “Influence of implant length and diameter on
       stress distribution: A finite element analysis.” THE JOURNAL OF
       PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, VOLUME 91 NUMBER 1, JANUARY 2004
[15]   Luigi Baggi, DDS,a Ilaria Cappelloni, MS, Michele Di Girolamo, DDS, Franco
       Maceri, MS, and Giuseppe Vairo, MS, PhD, “The Influence of Implant Diameter
       And Length on Stress Distribution of Osseointegrated Implants Related to
       Crestal Bone Geometry: A Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.” The
       Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2008;100:422-431
[16]   Luigi Baggi, Ilaria Cappelloni, Franco Maceri, Giuseppe Vairo, “Stress-Based
       Performance Evaluation Of Osseointegrated Dental Implants By Finite
       Element Simulation.” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16 (2008) 971–
       987
[17]   M.M.Gallas, M.T.Abeleira, J.R.Fernandez and M.Burguera, “Three-Dimensional
       Numerical Simulation Of Dental Implants As Orthodontic Anchorage.”
       European Journal of Orthodontics, volume27 number 1: 12-16, 2005
[18]   Kagan Degerliyurt, DDS, PhD, Baris Simsek, DDS, PhD, Erkan Erkmen, DDS,
       PhD, and Atilim Eser, Kayseri and Ankara, Turkey; and Nicosia, Cyprus, “Effects
       of Different Fixture Geometries On The Stress Distribution In Mandibular
       Peri-Implant Structures: A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.” Oral Surg
       Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:e1-e11




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 43
[19]     Osama Abu-Hammad, BDS, MSc, PhD; Ameen Khraisat, BDS, PhD; Najla Dar-
         Odeh, BDS, FDS RCS (Ed); Mohammed El-Maaytah, BDS, MSc, PhD, FDS RCPS
         (Glasg), LDS RCS (Eng), “Effect of Dental Implant Cross-Sectional Design on
         Cortical Bone Structure Using Finite Element Analysis.” Clinical Implant
         Dentistry and Related Research, Volume 9, Number 4, 2007
[20]     R. C. VAN STADEN, H. GUAN, Y. C. LOO, “Application of finite element
         method in dental implant research.” School of Engineering, Griffith University
         Gold Coast Campus, Australia
[21]     S. Hansson, M. Werke, “The Implant Thread As A Retention Element In
         Cortical Bone: The Effect of Thread Size And Thread Profile: A Finite
         Element Study.” Journal of Biomechanics 36 (2003) 1247–1258
[22]     SHYH-CHOUR HUANG, CHANG-FENG TSAI, “Finite Element Analysis of A
         Dental Implant.” BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS, BASIS &
         COMMUNICATIONS Vol. 15 No. 2 April 2003
[23]     Stig hansson, “The Implant Neck: Smooth or Provided with Retention
         Elements.” Clin Oral Impl Res 1999: 10: 394-405
[24]     T. Li, L. Kong, Y. Wang, K. Hu, L. Song, B. Liu, D. Li, J. Shao, Y. Ding,
         “Selection of Optimal Dental Implant Diameter and Length In Type IV bone:
         A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis.” Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
         2009; 38: 1077–1083


Books:
[25]     ABAQUS CAE User Manual Version 6.5(2004). ABAQUS, Inc
[26]     Jianping Geng, Weiqi Yan, WeiXu (2008). Application of the Finite Element
         Method in Implant Dentistry. SpringerLink
[27]     J. E. Akin (1994),Finite Elements For Analysis and Design. Academic Press Inc
[28]     The Finite Element Method Volume1. Science Direct
[29]     The Finite Element Method Volume2. Science Direct

Internet:

[30]     Bicon Product Implants. 21 June 2010
         http://www.bicon.com/

[31]     BioHorizons Product Implants. 21 June 2010
         http://www.biohorizons.com/

[32]     Biomet3i Product Implants. 21 June 2010
         http://biomet3i.com/?PageId=169360838381

[33]     Bone Types 6 September 2010
         http://www.seattle-implants.com/txmenu/bontyp.htm

[34]     Bone Quality and Quantity 6 September 2010
         http://www.pidentalcenter.com/misc/bone/bone7.html

[35]     Dental Implant. 24 February 2010
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_implant

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 44
[36]   Dental Implant Guide 25 February 2010
       http://www.dentalimplant.co.uk/aboutimplants.html

[37]   Dental Implants. March 2010
       http://www.aaoms.org/dental_implants.php

[38]   KeyStone Product Implants. 22 June 2010
       http://www.keystonedental.com/implants/

[39]   Nobel Biocare Product Implants. 23 June 2010
       http://www.nobelbiocare.com/en/products-solutions/default.aspx

[40]   Osstem Product Implants. 17 June 2010
       http://en.osstem.com/implant/implant_main.ost

[41]   Straumann Product Implants. 17 June 2010
       http://www.straumann.sg/sg-index/products/products-surgical-implant-
       lines.htm

[42]   Stress and Strain 22 March 2010
       http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/2f.html

[43]   Stress and Strain Curve 22 March 2010/10/26
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_and_strain

[44]   What are Dental Implant February 2010
       http://www.singaporeimplant.com/implantservices.htm

[45]   Zimmer Product Implants. 18 June 2010
       http://zimmerdental.com/im_overview.aspx




A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODELS FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DESIGNS AND
PROPOSE A NEW DENTAL IMPLANT PROSTHETIC                                   Page 45

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:5/18/2012
language:
pages:45
fanzhongqing fanzhongqing http://
About