Biomechanical comparison of sinus floor elevation and alternative treatment methods for dental implant placement

被引:11
作者
Kucukkurt, Sercan [1 ]
Alpaslan, Goekhan [2 ]
Kurt, Ahmet [3 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Aydn Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Fac Dent, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Gazi Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Fac Dent, Ankara, Turkey
[3] Atilim Univ, Dept Mfg Engn, Fac Engn, Ankara, Turkey
关键词
Dental implants; sinus floor augmentation; dental stress analysis; finite element analysis; FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS; EDENTULISM; PROSTHESES; BONE;
D O I
10.1080/10255842.2016.1218482
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Objective: In this study, we compared the success of sinus lifting and alternative treatment methods in applying dental implants in cases lacking adequate bone due to pneumatization of the maxillary sinus. Methods: In a computer environment, 3D models were created using computerized tomography data from a patient. Additionally, implants and abutments were scanned at the macroscopic level, and the resulting images were transferred to the 3D models. Five different models were examined: a control model, lateral sinus lifting (LSL), short dental implant placement (SIP), tilted implant placement (TIP) and distal prosthetic cantilever (DC) use. Vertical and oblique forces were applied in each model. The compression, tension and von Mises stresses in each model were analyzed by implementing a finite element analysis method. Results: In our study, the LSL method was observed to be the closest to the control model. The TIP model showed high stress values under conditions of oblique forces but showed successful results under conditions of vertical forces, and the opposite results were observed in the SIP model. The DC model provided the least successful results among all models. Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, the LSL method should be the first choice among treatment options. Considering its successful results under conditions of oblique forces, the SIP method may be preferable to the TIP method. In contrast, every effort should be made to avoid the use of DCs.
引用
收藏
页码:284 / 293
页数:10
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Finite element stress analysis of the effect of short implant usage in place of cantilever extensions in mandibular posterior edentulism [J].
Akça, K ;
Iplikçioglu, H .
JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2002, 29 (04) :350-356
[2]   Short Dental Implants: A Systematic Review [J].
Annibali, S. ;
Cristalli, M. P. ;
Dell'Aquila, D. ;
Bignozzi, I. ;
La Monaca, G. ;
Pilloni, A. .
JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2012, 91 (01) :25-32
[3]  
Atieh MA, 2012, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V27, P1323
[4]  
Becker CM, 2004, QUINTESSENCE INT, V35, P437
[5]  
Bevilacqua M, 2008, INT J PROSTHODONT, V21, P539
[6]   Reasons for failures of oral implants [J].
Chrcanovic, B. R. ;
Albrektsson, T. ;
Wennerberg, A. .
JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2014, 41 (06) :443-476
[7]  
das Neves FD, 2006, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V21, P86
[8]  
DeTolla D H, 2000, J Oral Implantol, V26, P77, DOI 10.1563/1548-1336(2000)026<0077:TROTFE>2.3.CO
[9]  
2
[10]  
Fanuscu Mete I, 2004, J Oral Implantol, V30, P59, DOI 10.1563/0.674.1