Abstract
Statement of problem
The clinical application of short implants has been increasing. However, studies on
the marginal bone loss of short implants are sparse, and clinicians often choose short
implants based on their own experience rather than on scientific information.
Purpose
The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the microstrain-stress
distribution in the peri-implant bone and implant components for 4 types of short
implants at different placement depths of platform switching.
Material and methods
By using short implants as prototypes, 4 short implant models were 1:1 modeled. The
diameter and length of the implants were 5×5, 5×6, 6×5, and 6×6 mm. The restoration
was identical for all implants. Three different depths of implant platform switching
were set: equicrestal, 0.5-mm subcrestal, and 1-mm subcrestal. The models were then
assembled and assigned an occlusal force of 200 N (vertical or 30-degree oblique).
A finite element analysis was carried out to evaluate the maximum equivalent elastic
strain and von Mises stress in the bone and the stress distribution in the implant
components.
Results
The 5×5 implant group showed the largest intraosseous strain (21.921×103 με). A 1-mm increase in implant diameter resulted in a 17.1% to 37.4% reduction in
maximum intraosseous strain when loaded with oblique forces. The strain in the bone
tended to be much smaller than the placement depth at the equicrestal and 0.5-mm subcrestal
positions than that at the 1-mm subcrestal position, especially under oblique force
loading, with an increase of approximately 37.4% to 81.8%. In addition, when the cortical
bone thickness was less than 4 mm, 5×6 implants caused significantly higher intraosseous
stresses than 6×6 implants.
Conclusions
Large implant diameters, rather than long implants, led to reduced intraosseous strain,
especially under oblique loading. Regarding the implant platform switching depth,
the short implant showed small intraosseous strains when the platform switching depth
was equicrestal or 0.5-mm subcrestal.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Survival of short and ultra-short locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in the posterior mandible: a 3-year retrospective study.J Oral Implantol. 2020; 46: 396-406
- Short implants (6 mm) vs. vertical bone augmentation and standard-length implants (>= 9 mm) in atrophic posterior mandibles: a 5-year retrospective study.Int J Oral Max Surg. 2017; 46: 1607-1614
- Short implants (<= 8 mm) compared to standard length implants (> 8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Oral Max Surg. 2019; 48: 239-249
- "All on short" prosthetic-implant supported rehabilitations.Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017; 10: 477-487
- Short versus regular-length implants to rehabilitate partially edentulous mandible: a 2-Year prospective split-mouth clinical study.J Oral Implantol. 2022; 48: 277-284
- Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (> 8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic posterior maxilla: a meta-analysis of RCTs.Clin Implant Dent R. 2017; 19: 207-215
- Influence of crown-implant ratio on implant success rate of ultra-short dental implants: results of a 8-to 10-year retrospective study.Clin Oral Invest. 2020; 24: 3213-3222
- Survival of short implants is improved with greater implant length, placement in the mandible compared with the maxilla, and in nonsmokers.J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012; 12: 18-20
- Ultra-short versus standard-length dental implants in conjunction with osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clin Implant Dent R. 2021; 23: 520-529
- Crown-to-implant ratios of short-length implants.J Oral Implantol. 2010; 36: 425-433
- Survival rates of ultra-short (<6 mm) compared with short locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas: a 5-year retrospective study.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021; 23: 904-919
- Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: a 3-year randomized clinical trial.J Clin Periodontol. 2021; 48: 695-704
- Influence of implant length and diameter, bicortical anchorage, and sinus augmentation on bone stress distribution: three-dimensional finite element analysis.Int J Oral Max Impl. 2016; 31: 84-91
- Effect of abutment's height and framework alloy on the load distribution of mandibular cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis.Clin Oral Implan Res. 2009; 20: 196-200
- Effect of cantilever length and alloy framework on the stress distribution in peri-implant area of cantilevered implant-supported fixed partial dentures.J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 114-120
- Three-dimensional finite element analysis of buccally cantilevered implant-supported prostheses in a severely resorbed mandible.J Adv Prosthodont. 2021; 13: 12-23
- Radiological implications of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in posterior areas. A cone-beam computed tomography study.J Clin Exp Dent. 2020; 12: 870-876
- Influence of abutment height and implant depth position on interproximal peri-implant bone in sites with thin mucosa: a 1-year randomized clinical trial.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 595-602
- Impact of different placement depths on the crestal bone level of immediate versus delayed placed platform-switched implants.J Cranio Maxill Surg. 2018; 46: 1139-1146
- Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal placement of dental implants: In vitro and numerical analyses.J Periodontol. 2011; 82: 302-310
- The effect of placement depth of platform- switched implants on periimplant cortical bone stress: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis.Implant Dent. 2013; 22: 165-169
- The biomechanical analysis of relative position between implant and alveolar bone: finite element method.J Periodontol. 2011; 82: 489-496
- Clinical and radiographic evaluation of marginal bone changes around platform-switching implants placed in crestal or subcrestal positions: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clin Implant Dent R. 2015; 17: 364-375
- A prospective multicenter study on radiographic crestal bone changes around dental implants placed at crestal or subcrestal level: one-year findings.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33: 913-918
- Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016; 21: e103-e110
- Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127: 408-417
- Marginal bone loss around crestal or subcrestal dental implants: prospective clinical study.J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 48: 159-166
- Effect of different implant placement depths on crestal bone levels and soft tissue behavior: A 5-year randomized clinical trial.Clin Oral Implan Res. 2020; 31: 282-293
- Marginal bone loss in relation to platform switching implant insertion depth: an update.J Clin Exp Dent. 2012; 4: e173-e179
- Biomechanical analysis of 4 types of short dental implants in a resorbed mandible.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 659-670
- Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129: 721.e7
- Influence of parafunctional loading and prosthetic connection on stress distribution: a 3D finite element analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 644-651
- Dynamic and static mechanical analysis of resin luting cements.J Mech Behav Biomed. 2012; 6: 1-8
- The influence of custom-milled framework design for an implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prosthesis: 3D-FEA sudy.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 4040
- Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: a finite element study.J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11: 341-349
- Comparative finite element analysis of mandibular posterior single zirconia and titanium implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis.J Adv Prosthodont. 2021; 13: 396-407
- Effect of peri-implant bone resorption on mechanical stress in the implant body: In vivo measured load-based finite element analysis.J Oral Rehabil. 2020; 47: 1566-1573
- Effect of two different soft liners and thicknesses mediating stress transfer for immediately loaded 2-implant supported mandibular overdentures: a finite element analysis study.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 356-361
- Three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis and microcomputed tomography evaluation of microgap formation in a dental implant under oblique loading.Int J Oral Max Impl. 2016; 31: 32-42
- 3-D finite element analysis of the effects of post location and loading location on stress distribution in root canals of the mandibular 1st molar.J Appl Oral Sci. 2018; 26e20160406
- Biological reactions of alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral implants.Clin Oral Implan Res. 2001; 12: 144-152
- Influence of forces on peri-implant bone.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17: 8-18
- Tensile and fatigue-strength of hydrogen-treated Ti-6Al-4V alloy.J Mater Sci. 1991; 26: 328-334
- Biomechanical effects of dental implant diameter, connection type, and bone density on microgap formation and fatigue failure: a finite element analysis.Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2021; 200: 105863
- Evaluating the effect of subcrestal placement on platform switched short dental implants and von Mises stress in D3 bone-A 3D FEM study.Niger J Clin Pract. 2021; 24: 660-666
- Influence of dental implant diameter and bone quality on the biomechanics of single-crown restoration. A finite element analysis.Dentistry journal. 2021; 9: 103
- Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: an in silico analysis.Mat Sci Eng C-Mater. 2018; 90: 645-650
- Initial stability and bone strain evaluation of the immediately loaded dental implant: an in vitro model study.Clin Oral Implan Res. 2011; 22: 691-698
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 01, 2023
Footnotes
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos.: 82071164, 82271016, and 81970984) and the Key Research and Development Program of Sichuan Province (grant no.: 2021YFS0052).
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
