Treffer: Comparison of implant placement at crestal and subcrestal levels in aesthetic zone: A finite element analysis.
Original Publication: Philadelphia, PA : W.B. Saunders Co., c1992-
J Adv Prosthodont. 2020 Oct;12(5):316-321. (PMID: 33149853)
J Prosthodont. 2026 Jan;35(1):54-60. (PMID: 39136220)
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016 Jun;46(3):152-65. (PMID: 27382504)
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Dec;100(6):422-31. (PMID: 19033026)
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010 Jun;30(3):237-43. (PMID: 20386780)
BMC Oral Health. 2011 Dec 21;11:34. (PMID: 22188872)
Int J Implant Dent. 2018 Mar 8;4(1):7. (PMID: 29516219)
Materials (Basel). 2019 Jan 05;12(1):. (PMID: 30621286)
J Periodontol. 2010 Mar;81(3):428-34. (PMID: 20192870)
Dent Mater. 2023 Jun;39(6):539-556. (PMID: 37080880)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e364-75. (PMID: 25041252)
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(2):155-167. (PMID: 31090747)
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Jan 01;21(1):e103-10. (PMID: 26615504)
Materials (Basel). 2020 Jul 09;13(14):. (PMID: 32659947)
J Dent Res. 2012 Mar;91(3):242-8. (PMID: 22157097)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(6):1553-63. (PMID: 24278924)
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Jan 31;20(1):31. (PMID: 32005142)
J Prosthodont. 2022 Oct;31(8):689-696. (PMID: 34859942)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):577-81. (PMID: 20556258)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25. (PMID: 3527955)
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Apr;125(4):611-619. (PMID: 32359852)
J Periodontol. 2011 May;82(5):708-15. (PMID: 21138355)
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jun;89(6):589-97. (PMID: 12815353)
Implant Dent. 2007 Jun;16(2):165-75. (PMID: 17563507)
Weitere Informationen
Purpose: The success rate of the implant treatment, including aesthetics and long-term survival, relies heavily on preserving crestal peri-implant bone, as it determines the stability and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to demonstrate the stress differences in the crestal bone resulting from dental implant placement at various depths relative to the crestal bone level using finite element analysis.
Materials and Methods: Three study models were prepared for implant placement at the crestal bone level (CL), 1 mm depth (SL-1), and 2 mm depth (SL-2). Implants were placed in the maxillary central incisor region of each model, and 100 N vertical and oblique forces were applied. The von Mises, maximum principal (tensile), and minimum principal (compressive) stresses were evaluated.
Results: The CL model exhibited the highest stresses on the implant, abutment, and abutment screws under vertical and oblique forces. For maximum principal stress in the crestal bone under vertical force, the SL-2, SL-1, and CL models recorded values of 6.56, 6.26, and 5.77 MPa, respectively. Under oblique forces, stress values for SL-1, SL-2, and CL were 25.3, 24.91, and 23.76 MPa, respectively. The CL model consistently exhibited the lowest crestal bone stress at all loads and the highest stress values on the implant and its components. Moreover, considering the yield strengths of the materials, no mechanical or physiological complications were noted.
Conclusions: Placing the implant at the crestal level or subcrestally beyond the cortical layer could potentially reduce stress and minimize crestal bone loss. However, further studies are warranted for confirmation.
(© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists.)