We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 5     4. Oct. 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 5  (04.10.2018)

Online Article, Page e117-e126, doi:10.11607/jomi.6261, PubMed:30231094

Online Article: Influences of Implant and Framework Materials on Stress Distribution: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis Study
Bahadirli, Gulcan / Yilmaz, Suat / Jones, Tobie / Sen, Deniz
Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the stress distribution patterns of different implant and restorative materials in the supporting tissue and implants.
Materials and Methods: Twelve different implant/bone models were created using SolidWorks 2015 software (SolidWorks Corp) and analyzed using the finite element method. Straumann Bone Level implants with zirconia abutments and single-piece Straumann PURE Ceramic implants (Institute Straumann) restored with lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and zirconia ceramic cement-retained crowns were evaluated. A 118.2-N load was applied to the coronal aspect of the buccal cusp at a 75.8-degree angle in relation to the occlusal plane. Principal stress values for cortical and trabecular bone and the equivalent von Mises stress values for implants and frameworks were calculated.
Results: Zirconia (ZrO2) implant models showed lower principal stress values than the commercially pure titanium (cpTi) and titanium-zirconium (TiZr) implant models in cortical bone. All models showed similar principal stress values in trabecular bone. Von Mises stress values at the cpTi and TiZr implants were similar; however, values observed of ZrO2 implants were higher. TiZr implants of 3.3 mm diameter showed similar strength to 4.1-mm-diameter cpTi implants. Both zirconia and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic frameworks transferred similar von Mises stress values in the supporting tissue of implant-supported prostheses.
Conclusion: Narrow-diameter TiZr implants may be preferred for patients who have insufficient bone volume without bone augmentation procedures due to the material's enhanced biomechanical properties. ZrO2 implants may be a suitable alternative for esthetic regions. Further clinical studies are recommended to investigate the long-term performance of TiZr and ZrO2 implants.

Keywords: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, three-dimensional finite element analysis, TiZr implants, zirconia, zirconia implants