Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to compare the differences in stress between Ti-6Al-4V and PS-ZrO(2) dental implant during clenching and whether these changes are clinically significant to limit the use of zirconia in oral implantology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The model geometry was derived from position measurements taken from 28 diamond blade cut cross-sections of an average size human adult edentulous mandible and generated using a special sequencing method. Data on anatomical, structural, functional aspects and material properties were obtained from measurements and published data. Ti-6Al-4V and PS-ZrO(2) dental implants were modelled as cylindrical structure with a diameter of 3.26 mm and length of 12.00 mm was placed in the first molar region on the right hemimandible. RESULTS: The analysis revealed an increase of 2-3% in the averaged tensile and compressive stress and an increase of 8% in the averaged Von Mises stress were recorded in the bone-implant interface when PS-ZrO(2) dental implant was used instead of Ti-6Al-4V dental implant. The results also revealed only relatively low levels of stresses were transferred from the implant to the surrounding cortical and cancellous bone, with the majority of the stresses transferred to the cortical bone. CONCLUSION: Even though high magnitudes of tensile, compressive and Von Mises stresses were recorded on the Ti-6Al-4V and PS-ZrO(2) dental implants and in the surrounding osseous structures, the stresses may not be clinically critical since the mechanical properties of the implant material and the cortical and cancellous bone could withstand stress magnitudes far greater than those recorded in this analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: