Elsevier

Computers in Biology and Medicine

Volume 91, 1 December 2017, Pages 318-325
Computers in Biology and Medicine

Impact of annual bone loss and different bone quality on dental implant success – A finite element study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.09.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Bone loss is both cause and effect of bone overload.

  • In bone loss, bone quality and implant size have major impact on stresses and strains.

  • Implant longevity is achieved by stress and strain limitation for types I-III bone.

  • For this specific scenario, type IV bone is improper for implant placement in view of bone loss.

Abstract

Background

For dental implant success, experimentally established thresholds should limit bone stresses and strains. From these metrics, the ultimate functional load, which determines the implant load-carrying capacity, can be calculated. Obviously, its decrease due to bone loss shortens implant service life. A comparison of how bone loss affects the ultimate functional loads of various implants can provide the clinician with meaningful feedback concerning the suitability and longevity of implants. The aim of this study is to evaluate the lifetime of different dental implants placed in I–IV bone types on the basis of a comparison of their ultimate functional loads with consideration of the bone loss factor.

Method

Von Mises stress and first principal strain distributions in bone-implant interface were studied and ultimate functional loads were calculated. Models of I–IV bone types were designed. 3.3 × 8.0 mm (A), 4.1 × 12.0 mm (B) and 4.8 × 14.0 mm (C) implants were analyzed at 10 levels of bone loss. Ultimate functional loads, which generated the ultimate von Mises stress and first principal strain in bone, were computed.

Results

For the implants A, B, and C placed in type I bone, ultimate functional load values were above 120.92 N experimental functional load, which corresponded to 10+, 10+, and 10 + years of service with 0.2 mm annual bone loss. For type II bone, the lifetime was 4, 10+, and 10 + years. For type III bone, the lifetime was 4, 5, and 5 years. For type IV bone, first principal strains were initially deleterious for all implants.

Conclusions

In oral implantology, bone loss is an essential factor for implant longevity prognosis. While evaluating implant load-carrying capacity, clinicians should take into account the factor of implant longevity decrease.

Introduction

The failure of osseointegrated implants is often caused by peri-implant bone loss [1], [2], [3]. The annual amount of bone loss less than 0.2 mm following the first year of implant service is recommended as one of the criteria for implant success by Albrektsson et al. [4]. Some researchers call for a revision of this specific criterion [5], however it is still used in commonly accepted studies on dental implant success [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The major causes of bone loss are peri-implantitis and mechanical overload [10]. The latter, in turn, occurs due to excessive bone stresses and strains caused by poor bone quality and inadequate implant dimensions.

For long-term implant success, a good quality (density) of bone surrounding an implant and a sound interface between them should be achieved. Bone quality describes its internal structure and reflects its elasticity and mechanical strength [11], [12], [13], which have a wide range of variability [14], [15], [16], [17]. Overall, bone quality is a crucial factor in selecting an implant and surgical procedure, determining the healing period and implant loading [18], [19], [20], [21].

Bone quality itself depends on the appropriate level of bone modeling/remodeling necessary to maintain bone density and manage bone microdamage. When bone tissue is incapable of coping with the repair of microdamage, the latter might accumulate and cause bone failure. In the “Mechanostat” proposal, Frost suggests that unrepaired bone microdamage starts to accumulate when strains exceed 3000 μstrain [22], [23]. According to an alternative viewpoint [24], stresses in bone should not exceed its ultimate strength (100–190 MPa for cortical bone and 1–5 MPa for cancellous bone) [24], [25], [26], [27], which also depends on bone quality. Furthermore, bone quality influences stress and strain concentrations around endosseous implants [13], [17], [24], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Increased bone strains and decreased implant stability are associated with low bone density, while high bone density improves stress transmission and distribution from an implant to adjacent bone. A common way to reduce bone stresses and strains is to increase implant dimensions.

Since inadequate implant dimensions are the main cause of peri-implant bone overload leading to bone loss and subsequent implant failure [27], [32], [33], [34], [35], effective strategies for selecting implants are crucial [17], [24], [28]. To evaluate the load-carrying capacity of different-sized implants under different bone quality conditions, a methodology based on correlating implant dimensions with stress, strain, and ultimate functional load values was proposed [28], [36], [37]. This is supported by the linear elasticity hypothesis, making it possible to calculate the ultimate value of functional load, which in turn determines the load-carrying capacity of an implant. Since the reduction, due to bone loss, of implant ultimate functional load to values below experimentally obtained functional load values would jeopardize implant longevity, assessment of reduced ultimate functional loads for different-sized implants can help in estimating the implant lifetime prognosis.

The finite element (FE) method is a unique instrument for the biomechanical analysis of dental implant longevity in view of bone loss. It was proposed to simulate the mechanical behavior of dental systems under various loading conditions [38], [39]. Numerical simulation was successfully applied to obtain unique results in bone-implant interface studies [34], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44].

Since partially osseointegrated implants (implants with partial loss of adjacent bone) cannot withstand the full functional loading due to a reduced strength of the bone-implant interface and excessive strains, bone loss study is a relevant subject of research in oral implantology. The aim of this study is to compare the load-carrying capacities of different-sized fully and partially osseointegrated implants in order to predict their long-term success and to help dentists in implant selection.

Section snippets

FE modeling principles

Nine 3D geometrical models of a bone segment with an inserted implant were generated using computed tomography (CT) images to determine the cortical bone thickness of four types of mandibular bone according to Lekholm and Zarb classification [45]. The diameter and the height of each model were set to 22 mm, chosen so to localize stress fields around implants (Fig. 1). Gingival soft tissues were not modeled. M1 bone model with type I bone contained compact bone only (Fig. 1 A, B), while M2 with

Results

High stresses and strains were localized in cortical and cancellous bone in the plane of critical bone-implant interface, where mobile points of critical stresses and strains were found. They are illustrated in Fig. 2 for a bone-implant assembly with 4.1 × 12.0 mm implant, two stages of bone loss (0.8 mm and 1.6 mm), and I–IV bone quality types. Von Mises stress and first principal strain values were calculated for each critical point of bone-implant interface.

For types I and II bone, the

Discussion

Occlusal overload is one of the most controversial issues in oral implantology. As follows from this study results, the overload is generated by excessive stresses in adjacent bone, which are, in fact, the flip side of excessive strains (Fig. 3, Fig. 4). Both stresses and strains reflect the mechanical reactions of bone tissues to loading, which are described in biomechanics in terms of constitutive equations. They are the simplest if linear relationships between stresses and strains, as well

Conclusions

With bone loss, both bone quality and implant dimensions have a major impact on implant lifetime. The long-term success of implant treatment is ensured by keeping stresses and strains within safe limits, choosing adequate implants, and dealing only with types I–III bone. Furthermore, the longevity of implants in types II and III bone depends on the peri-implant cortical bone loss period. Due to bone loss, type IV bone is unsuitable for implant placement. To achieve a high success rate in oral

Conflict of interest statement

None Declared.

Acknowledgements

All authors of this paper disclose no conflict of interest with any institutions.

References (60)

  • L. Baggi et al.

    The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

    J. Prosthet. Dent.

    (2008)
  • F. Isidor

    Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants, A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys

    Clin. Oral Implants Res.

    (1996)
  • B. Klinge

    Peri-implant marginal bone loss: an academic controversy or a clinical challenge?

    Eur. J. Oral Implantol.

    (2012)
  • J.H. Fu et al.

    Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants

    Eur. J. Oral Implantol.

    (2012)
  • T. Albrektsson et al.

    The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success

    Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants

    (1986)
  • L. Laurell et al.

    Marginal bone level changes at dental implants after 5 years in function: a meta-analysis

    Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.

    (2011)
  • A. Zembic et al.

    Eleven-year follow-up of a prospective study of zirconia implant abutments supporting single all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions

    Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.

    (2015)
  • M. Degidi et al.

    Comparative analysis of immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods: a 5-year follow-up of 550 dental implants

    Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.

    (2009)
  • E. Romeo et al.

    Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system

    Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants

    (2004)
  • P. Maló et al.

    All-on-4® treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level

    Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.

    (2015)
  • C.E. Misch et al.

    Implant success, survival, and failure: the international congress of oral implantologists (ICOI) pisa consensus conference

    Implant Dent.

    (2008)
  • C.E. Misch

    Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading

    Int. J. Oral Implantol.

    (1990)
  • C.E. Misch

    Bone density: a key determinant for treatment planning

  • A.H. Burstein et al.

    Aging of bone tissue: mechanical properties

    J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am.

    (1976)
  • J. Black et al.

    Handbook of Biomaterial Properties

    (1998)
  • R.C. Van Staden et al.

    Application of the finite element method in dental implant research

    Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin

    (2006)
  • R.B. Ashman et al.

    The elastic properties of a human mandible

    Adv. Dent. Res.

    (1987)
  • M. Quirynen et al.

    Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system

    Clin. Oral Implants Res.

    (1992)
  • G.A. Zarb et al.

    Implant prosthodontic treatment options for the edentulous patient

    J. Oral Rehabil.

    (1995)
  • D.L. Cochran

    The scientific basis for and clinical experiences with Straumann implants including the ITI dental implant system: a consensus report

    Clin. Oral Implants Res.

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text