Treffer: Comparison of implant placement at crestal and subcrestal levels in aesthetic zone: A finite element analysis.

Title:
Comparison of implant placement at crestal and subcrestal levels in aesthetic zone: A finite element analysis.
Authors:
Özer T; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey., Acar G; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Source:
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists [J Prosthodont] 2026 Jan; Vol. 35 (1), pp. 54-60. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Aug 13.
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Comparative Study
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9301275 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1532-849X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1059941X NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Prosthodont Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Philadelphia, PA : W.B. Saunders Co., c1992-
References:
J Clin Periodontol. 2018 May;45(5):605-612. (PMID: 29359339)
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)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: alveolar bone loss; alveolar process; biomechanical phenomena; dental implants; finite element analysis; tensile stress
Substance Nomenclature:
0 (Dental Implants)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20240813 Date Completed: 20260111 Latest Revision: 20260114
Update Code:
20260114
PubMed Central ID:
PMC12791187
DOI:
10.1111/jopr.13930
PMID:
39136220
Database:
MEDLINE

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.)