APPLICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE IMPLANT FRACTURES

Abstract

Statement of problem. Higher fracture rates were reported for Branemark implants placed in the maxilla and for 3.75 mm diameter implants installed in the posterior region. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to investigate the fracture of a fixture by finite element analysis and to compare different diameter of fixtures according to the level of alveolar bone resorption. Material and Methods. The single implant and prosthesis was modeled in accordance with the geometric designs for the 3i implant systems. Models were processed by the software programs HyperMesh and ANSA. Three-dimensional finite element models were developed for; (1) a regular titanium implant 3.75 mm in diameter and 13 mm in length (2) a regular titanium implant 4.0 mm in diameter and 13 mm in length (3) a wide titanium implant 5.0 mm in diameter and 13 mm in length each with a cementation type abutment and titanium alloy screw. The abutment screws were subjected to a tightening torque of 30 Ncm. The amount of preload was hypothesized as 650 N, and round and flat type prostheses were 12 mm in diameter, 9 mm in height were loaded to 600 N. Four loading offset points (0, 2, 4, and 6 mm from the center of the implants) were evaluated. To evaluate fixture fracture by alveolar bone resorption, we investigated the stress distribution of the fixtures according to different alveola. bone loss levels (0, 1.5, 3.5, and 5.0 mm of alveolar bone loss). Using these 12 models (four degrees of bone loss and three implant diameters), the effects of load-ing offset, the effect of alveolar bone resorption and the size of fixtures were evaluated. The PAM-CRASH 2G simulation software was used for analysis of stress. The PAM-VIEW and HyperView programs were used for post processing. Results. The results from our experiment are as follows: 1. Preload maintains implant-abutment joint stability within a limited offset point against occlusal force. 2. Von Mises stress of the implant, abutment screw, abutment, and bone was decreased with in-creasing of the implant diameter. 3. With severe advancing of alveolar bone resorption, fracture of the 3.75 and the 4.0 mm diameter implant was possible. 4. With increasing of bending stress by loading offset, fracture of the abutment screw was possible.