Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology · 2026
Analysis of stress distribution around conventional and basal dental implants in the posterior mandible: A finite element study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meikandan Gayathri N, Jayachandran D, Jayaprakash G, Saranyan R, Kesavan Priya, Deepa V M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dental implants have become a widely accepted solution for the replacement of missing teeth, offering functional and esthetic benefits. The long-term success of dental implants largely depends on the distribution of stresses in the surrounding bone, as excessive stress can lead to bone resorption and implant failure. Finite element analysis (FEA) is a powerful tool that allows for the simulation of mechanical behavior under functional loading, providing insights into stress patterns and implant performance in various anatomical and prosthetic configurations.
AIM: The aim of the study was to analyze stress distribution around conventional and basal dental implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible using FEA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The finite element model simulated a partially edentulous posterior mandibular segment where the mandibular second premolar and first molar were missing. Two dental implants were placed in the posterior mandible to simulate clinical rehabilitation of this region. Three-dimensional models were developed using cone beam computed tomography scans, and FEA was performed with ANSYS Workbench 18.1. Two models were analyzed: Model 1: conventional implant (4.1 mm × 8 mm) in 10-mm residual bone height and Model 2: basal implant (3.5 mm × 16 mm) in 8-mm residual bone height. Stress distribution was assessed under masticatory loading conditions to evaluate implant stability and stress accumulation in surrounding bone structures.
RESULTS: The study was designed as a comparative FEA evaluating stress distribution between conventional and basal implant systems placed in the posterior mandible under identical loading conditions. Model 2 (basal implant) exhibited greater deflection (13 μm), which may compromise implant stability. Model 1 (conventional implant) demonstrated higher stress accumulation in the cortical bone (34.71 MPa).
CONCLUSION: The present FEA demonstrates that although basal implants showed slightly lower crestal bone stress, the increased deformation observed may influence long-term biomechanical stability under functional loading conditions. Hence, Model 1 (conventional implant) is the preferred choice for clinical applications, offering better stability and longevity compared to Model 2.
AIM: The aim of the study was to analyze stress distribution around conventional and basal dental implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible using FEA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The finite element model simulated a partially edentulous posterior mandibular segment where the mandibular second premolar and first molar were missing. Two dental implants were placed in the posterior mandible to simulate clinical rehabilitation of this region. Three-dimensional models were developed using cone beam computed tomography scans, and FEA was performed with ANSYS Workbench 18.1. Two models were analyzed: Model 1: conventional implant (4.1 mm × 8 mm) in 10-mm residual bone height and Model 2: basal implant (3.5 mm × 16 mm) in 8-mm residual bone height. Stress distribution was assessed under masticatory loading conditions to evaluate implant stability and stress accumulation in surrounding bone structures.
RESULTS: The study was designed as a comparative FEA evaluating stress distribution between conventional and basal implant systems placed in the posterior mandible under identical loading conditions. Model 2 (basal implant) exhibited greater deflection (13 μm), which may compromise implant stability. Model 1 (conventional implant) demonstrated higher stress accumulation in the cortical bone (34.71 MPa).
CONCLUSION: The present FEA demonstrates that although basal implants showed slightly lower crestal bone stress, the increased deformation observed may influence long-term biomechanical stability under functional loading conditions. Hence, Model 1 (conventional implant) is the preferred choice for clinical applications, offering better stability and longevity compared to Model 2.