Archives of oral biology · 2025
Biomechanical impact of tooth root morphology to inform dental implant design.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wood-Bailey Amber P, Smith Chris, Fitton Laura C, Sharp Alana C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Using finite element analysis (FEA), this study aims to investigate the impact of different tooth root morphologies and implant designs, including a standard implant and a custom root-analogue implant on stress and strain distribution across the mandible.
DESIGN: Six models were created by varying the root morphology of one tooth (the mandibular first molar) under identical loading scenarios: an original molar root, an incisor root, a canine root, a taurodont root, a standard implant, and a custom root-analogue implant replicating the original root morphology.
RESULTS: Models with the original molar and custom implant exhibited similar stress and strain distributions over the mandible and had higher principal strains (tensile and compressive) compared to the single-rooted and standard implant models. Specifically, the maximum tensile and compressive strain values in the mandible of the custom implant model reach 94.89 % and 99.15 % of those in the original tooth root model. In contrast, the other models show less than 55.68 % similarity.
CONCLUSIONS: Custom root-analogue implants, which mimic natural root morphology, demonstrated more favourable stress distribution patterns, similar to those of the natural molar, compared to single-root implants. Our findings suggest that multi-rooted teeth are biomechanically optimized for dissipating masticatory loads, and standard single-root implants may not adequately replicate these properties, leading to poor load distribution and increased failure risk in posterior locations. Further research is needed to refine custom root-analogue implant designs and optimize their clinical application to better match the natural biomechanical environment of the maxilla and mandible.
DESIGN: Six models were created by varying the root morphology of one tooth (the mandibular first molar) under identical loading scenarios: an original molar root, an incisor root, a canine root, a taurodont root, a standard implant, and a custom root-analogue implant replicating the original root morphology.
RESULTS: Models with the original molar and custom implant exhibited similar stress and strain distributions over the mandible and had higher principal strains (tensile and compressive) compared to the single-rooted and standard implant models. Specifically, the maximum tensile and compressive strain values in the mandible of the custom implant model reach 94.89 % and 99.15 % of those in the original tooth root model. In contrast, the other models show less than 55.68 % similarity.
CONCLUSIONS: Custom root-analogue implants, which mimic natural root morphology, demonstrated more favourable stress distribution patterns, similar to those of the natural molar, compared to single-root implants. Our findings suggest that multi-rooted teeth are biomechanically optimized for dissipating masticatory loads, and standard single-root implants may not adequately replicate these properties, leading to poor load distribution and increased failure risk in posterior locations. Further research is needed to refine custom root-analogue implant designs and optimize their clinical application to better match the natural biomechanical environment of the maxilla and mandible.