Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2018, vol. 55, nr 1, January-March, p. 17–22

doi: 10.17219/dmp/85077

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Comparison of finite element results with photoelastic stress analysis around dental implants with different threads

Porównanie wyników metody elementów skończonych w ocenie naprężeń fotoelastycznych wokół wszczepów zębowych o różnym gwincie

Maryam Geramizadeh1,B,C,D, Hamidreza Katoozian1,E,F, Reza Amid2,A,F, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh2,A,E,F

1 Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Amirkabir University, Tehran, Iran

2 Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Background. The finite element method (FEM) has been used to analyze stress and strain distributions around 3 suggested dental implants with newly-designed thread parameters and the optimal shape of the implant was introduced considering the response surface optimization method sensitivity analysis. Experimental tests seemed necessary to confirm the results of the FEM.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to use experimental tests to prove the results of a finite element analysis of 3 dental implants with different thread designs under axial loads. Photoelastic stress analysis was chosen due to the similarity of analysis with FEM.
Material and Methods. Two-dimensional models of 3 dental implants were built of grade 4 titanium to be tested in the polariscope. Model 1: A tapered implant with V-shaped threads; Model 2: A tapered implant with micro-threads in the upper area and V-shaped threads in the rest of the body; Model 3: A tapered implant with reverse buttress threads in all areas. Axial loading of 100 N was applied to the top of the implants and stress patterns and the maximum stress were evaluated for each implant.
Results. The minimum Huber-Mises-Hencky stresses of cortical bone were recorded in model 2, a tapered implant with micro-threads in the upper area and V-shaped threads in the rest of the body. The value for 100 N loading was 15.25 MPa, which was in agreement with the FEM.
Conclusion. Considering the stress patterns and values obtained from experimental tests of photoelasticity, the tapered implant with micro-threads in the upper area and V-shaped threads in the rest of the body has the most uniform and desirable stress distribution in the surrounding cortical bone and is preferred to be used in future applications.

Key words

dental implant, biomechanics, finite element, photoelasticity

Słowa kluczowe

implanty stomatologiczne, biomechanika, metoda elementów skończonych, fotoelastyczność

References (17)

  1. Philips JW. Experimental stress analysis. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Board of Trustees; 1998.
  2. Carvalho L, Roriz P, Simões J, Frazão O. New trends in dental biomechanics with photonics technologies. Appl Sci. 2015;24:1350-1378.
  3. Corrêa CB, Ribeiro AR, Reis JM, Vaz LG. Photoelasticity in dentistry: A literature review. RSBO Rev Sul-Bras Odontol. 2014;11:178-184.
  4. Cloud GL. Optical methods of engineering analysis. London, England: Cambridge University Press; 1988;2.
  5. Durelli AJ. Introduction to photo-mechanics. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1965.
  6. Shinde SB, Hirmukhe SS, Dhatrak PN. Photoelastic stress analysis: A review. Paper presented at: 5th National Conference RDME; 2016.
  7. Zielak JC, Filietaz M, Archetti FB, et al. Colorimetric photoelastic analysis of tension distribution around dental implants. RSBO Rev Sul-Bras Odontol. 2013;10:318-325.
  8. Udae C, Markarian RA, Sendik CL, Lagana DL. Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution on parallel and angled implants after installation of fixed prostheses. Braz Oral Res. 2004;18:45-52.
  9. Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Dos Santos DM, Haddad MF, Moreno A. Photoelastic stress analysis in prosthetic implants of different diameters: Mini, narrow, standard or wide. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:ZC86-90.
  10. Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M. Three-dimensional optimization and sensitivity analysis of dental implants thread parameters using finite element analysis. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;14;145-152.
  11. Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M. Static, dynamic and fatigue finite element analysis of dental implants with different thread designs. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2016;26:347-355.
  12. Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M. Finite element analysis of dental implants with and without microthreads under static and dynamic loading. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2017;27:35-42.
  13. Doyle JF, Phillips JW. Manual on experimental stress analysis. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Bethel, CT: Society for Experimental Mechanics; 1988.
  14. Kozłowska B. Two-dimensional experimental elastic-plastic strain and stress analysis. J Theor Appl Mech. 2013;51:419-430.
  15. Zarei I, Khajehpour S, Zahedinejad P. Assessing the effect of thread design on stress and strain distribution around dental implants, using three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent Biomater. 2016;3:233-240.
  16. Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis - a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effect of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. Oral Implantol. 1998;24:80-88.
  17. Frost HM. Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: A proposal. Anat Rec. 1987;219:1-9.