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 32 (2017), No. 2     17. Mar. 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 2  (17.03.2017)

Page 264-270, doi:10.11607/jomi.4797, PubMed:28291847

Biomechanical Behavior of the Dental Implant Macrodesign
Andrade, Camila Lima de / Carvalho, Marco Aurélio / Bordin, Dimorvan / Silva, Wander José da / Del Bel Cury, Altair Antoninha / Sotto-Maior, Bruno Salles
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant macrodesign when using different types of collar and thread designs on stress/strain distributions in a maxillary bone site.
Materials and Methods: Six groups were obtained from the combination of two collar designs (smooth and microthread) and three thread shapes (square, trapezoidal, and triangular) in external hexagon implants (4 × 10 mm) supporting a single zirconia crown in the maxillary first molar region. A 200-N axial occlusal load was applied to the crown, and measurements were made of the von Mises stress (σvM) for the implant, and tensile stress (σmax), shear stress (τmax), and strain (εmax) for the surrounding bone using tridimensional finite element analysis. The main effects of each level of the two factors investigated (collar and thread designs) were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a 5% significance level.
Results: Collar design was the main factor of influence on von Mises stress in the implant and stresses/strain in the cortical bone, while thread design was the main factor of influence on stresses in the trabecular bone (P < .05). The optimal collar design able to produce more favorable stress/strain distribution was the microthreaded design for the cortical bone. For the trabecular bone, the triangular thread shape had the lowest stresses and strain values among the square and trapezoidal implants.
Conclusion: Stress/strain distribution patterns were influenced by collar design in the implant and cortical bone, and by thread design in the trabecular bone. Microthreads and triangular thread-shape designs presented improved biomechanical behavior in posterior maxillary bone when compared with the smooth collar design and trapezoidal and square-shaped threads.