Zampelis Antonios, Rangert Bo, Heijl Lars
Postgraduate Program in Periodontics, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden.
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Jun;97(6 Suppl):S35-43. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60006-7.
Presence of the maxillary sinus or the mental foramen may prevent implant treatment in the posterior maxilla or mandible. Tilting of distal implants supporting fixed restorations may be a valid treatment alternative.
The aim of this study was to evaluate if tilting of splinted implants affects stress distribution in the bone surrounding the implant cervix, and to investigate if the use of tilted implants as distal abutments is biomechanically superior to the use of distal cantilevers.
A 2-dimensional (2-D) model for finite element analysis was developed using two 13-mm implants splinted by a titanium beam, 16 x 3 mm. The implants were embedded in bone blocks, simulating different bone properties. A small crater was created in the marginal bone around the tilted implant to simulate physiologic bone remodeling. The model with a distal cantilever 7 mm long and a distal implant was compared to a model in which the distal implant (13 or 19 mm) was tilted 45 degrees and supported the distal end of the cantilever. A force of 50 N was applied via the beam.
The stress at the most coronal bone-to-implant contact was identical irrespective of the angle of tilt, demonstrating that tilting of splinted implants does not result in increased stress. The cantilevered model showed that the use of cantilevers results in higher stress in the marginal bone around implants. This stress is reduced to "normal" levels when the cantilever arm is negated by the distal implant being apically inclined to support the distal end of the cantilever. Use of a longer implant only reduces the stress marginally.
Within the limitations of this 2-D finite element analysis, it appears that distal tilting of implants splinted by fixed restorations does not increase bone stress compared to normally placed, vertical implants. There is a biomechanical advantage in using tilted distal implants rather than distal cantilever units.
上颌窦或颏孔的存在可能会妨碍在后牙区上颌骨或下颌骨进行种植治疗。支持固定修复体的远中种植体倾斜可能是一种有效的治疗选择。
本研究的目的是评估联冠种植体倾斜是否会影响种植体颈部周围骨组织的应力分布,并研究将倾斜种植体用作远中基牙在生物力学上是否优于使用远中悬臂梁。
使用一根16×3mm的钛梁将两颗13mm的种植体连接起来,建立一个二维(2-D)有限元分析模型。种植体植入模拟不同骨特性的骨块中。在倾斜种植体周围的边缘骨上创建一个小凹坑,以模拟生理性骨改建。将带有7mm长远中悬臂梁和远中种植体的模型与远中种植体(13mm或19mm)倾斜45度并支撑悬臂梁远端的模型进行比较。通过梁施加50N的力。
无论倾斜角度如何,最冠方骨与种植体接触处产生的应力均相同,表明联冠种植体倾斜不会导致应力增加。悬臂梁模型显示,使用悬臂梁会使种植体周围边缘骨中的应力更高。当远中种植体向根尖方向倾斜以支撑悬臂梁远端从而抵消悬臂梁时,这种应力会降低到“正常”水平。使用更长的种植体只会使应力略有降低。
在本二维有限元分析的局限性范围内,与正常植入的垂直种植体相比,由固定修复体连接的种植体向远中倾斜似乎不会增加骨应力。使用倾斜的远中种植体而非远中悬臂梁单位具有生物力学优势。