Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

IKI FARKLI TIP DENTAL IMPLANTIN' FINITE ELEMENT METHOD1' (EEM) İLE BİYOMEKANİK AÇIDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATIO N OF THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPE DENTAL IMPLANTS WITH FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (FEM)

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1996

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Five models were constructed and studied by FEM to investigate biomechanical aspects of the two different type dental implants. Periimplantium, in constructed models of the fibroosseous integration showed cushion type function similar to natural periodontium. Tn all the implant models, high tension accumulation around the neck of the implant revealed need for protection in this region. In the models of osseointegration, more tension accumaliton was observed than the fibroosseous and control models. Fn conclusion, we can assume that osseointegration may cause bone damage.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
İki farklı tip dental implantın biyomekanik yönlerini araştırmak amacıyla 5 adel model oluşturulmuştur. Modellerin Finite Element Method (FEM)'ıı ife yapılan iki boyut!u inceleme sonucunda, fibroosseöz integrasyonunun yansıtıldığı modellerde, periimplantiumun doğal diş çevresindeki periyodonsiyum benzeri bir yastık görevi yaptığı ortaya çıkmıştır. împlantlarm boyun bölgesinde yüksek gerilme yığılmalarının olmasj bu bölgenin tasarımının önemli olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Osseöz integrasyonunun yansıtıldığı modellerde implant çevresinde diğer modellere göre daha fazla gerilme yığtimalarmın oluşması kemikte 7ararlı etkilere yol açabileceği olasılığı açısından dikkate değer bulunmuştur
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-iki-farkli-tip-dental-implantin-finite-element-method1-eem-ile-biyomekanik-acidan-degerlendirilmesi.pdf
  • 1
1-8
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Borchers L, Reichard P. Three-dimensional stress distribution around a dental implant et different stages of interface development. J Dent Res 1983; 62: 155-9.
2. Brunski JB, Hipp JA. İn vivo forces on endosteal implants. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 82 90.
3. Buch JD, Close JG, Bechtol CO. Biomechanics! and biomaterial considerations of natural teeth, tooth replacements and skeletal fixation. Biomater Med Dev Art Org 1974; I: 171-86.
4. Desai CS, Abel JF. Introduction to The Finite Element Method I th ed Van Nostrah Reinhold Co. New York, 1972.
5. Hughes T JR. The Finite Hement Method. Prentice- Hall International Editions,New Jorsey, 1987.
6. Kawahara H. Cellular responses to implant materials: Biological, physical and chemical factors. FDI, 1983; 33: 350-75¬7. Kaye GWC, Laby TH, Tables of Physical and
Chemical Conlctants. 14 th ed London, Longman. 1982.
8. Kitoh M. Matsushita Y, Yamaue S, Ikedo H, Suetsugu T. The stress distribution of the hidroxyapatite implant under the vertical load by the two-dimensional finite element method. J Oral Implantol 1988; 14: 65-71.
9. Munir ZA, Richards LW, Prado ME. Photoelaslic studies of the slrees distributions on blade-type endosteal dental implants. J Oral Implantol 1975; 5: 292-312.
10. Natiella JR, Armitage JE, Meenaghan MA, Lipani CS, Greene GW. The failing blade vent implant. J Oral Surg 1973; 36: 336-42.
11. Popov EP. introduction to Mechanics of Solids. Prentice -Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, 1979, 93-102.
12. Privitizer E, Widera O, Tesk JA, Some factors affecting dental implant design. J Biomed Mater Res Symp

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com