Biomechanics and strain mapping in bone as related to immediately-loaded dental implants. Issue 12 (18th September 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Du, Jing; Lee, Ji-Hyun; Jang, Andrew T.; Gu, Allen; Hossaini-Zadeh, Mehran; Prevost, Richard; Curtis, Donald A.; Ho, Sunita P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of biomechanics. Volume 48:Issue 12(2015)
• Page Start: 3486
• Page End: 3494
• Publication Date: 2015-09-18
• Subjects: Animal mechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Mécanique animale -- Périodiques; Biomécanique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 571.4305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.05.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-9290

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="author" id="ab0010"> <title id="sect0005">Abstract</title> <sec> <p id="sp0045">The effects of alveolar bone socket geometry and bone–implant contact on implant biomechanics, and resulting strain distributions in bone were investigated. Following extraction of lateral incisors on a cadaver mandible, implants were placed immediately and bone–implant contact area, stability implant biomechanics and bone strain were measured. <italic>In situ</italic> biomechanical testing coupled with micro X-ray microscopy (µ-XRM) illustrated less stiff bone–implant complexes (701–822 N/mm) compared with bone–periodontal ligament (PDL)–tooth complexes (791–913 N/mm). X-ray tomograms illustrated that the cause of reduced stiffness was due to limited bone–implant contact. Heterogeneous elemental composition of bone was identified by using energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The novel aspect of this study was the application of a new experimental mechanics method, that is, digital volume correlation, which allowed mapping of strains in volumes of alveolar bone in contact with a loaded implant. The identified surface and subsurface strain concentrations were a manifestation of load transferred to bone through bone–implant contact based on bone–implant geometry, quality of bone, implant placement, and implant design. 3D strain mapping indicated that strain concentrations are not exclusive to the bone–implant contact regions, but also extend into bone not directly in contact with the implant. The implications of the observed strain concentrations are discussed in the context of mechanobiology. Although a plausible explanation of surgical complications for immediate implant treatment is provided, extrapolation of results is only warranted by future systematic studies on more cadaver specimens and/or <italic>in vivo</italic> models.</p> </sec> </abstract>