Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Significance of Orthotropic Material Models to Predict Stress Around Bone-Implant Interface Using Numerical Simulation

  • Published:
BioNanoScience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several finite element models of bone-implant prosthetic derived with geometrical topology and material properties. Most of them adopted linear isotropic material properties to predict stresses around bone-implant interface. The objective of the present study is to compare stress distribution around bone-implant interface between two material models. In order to understand the biomechanical stress behavior at bone-implant interface, four different implant models were selected for the study. Mandibular bone section material models for isotropic and orthotropic material is defined with the contact between bone and implant surface to predict the von Mises stresses in the cancellous and cortical bone under the influence of vertical load of 100 N (coronal-apical), lateral load of 40 N (mesial-distal), and oblique load of 100 N at 45° to the axis of implant on crown surface. A nonlinear Abaqus CAE code is used to predict stresses distribution comparison between two material models.

The current study compares the result of stress in cancellous and cortical bone with isotropic and orthotropic material models. The stress distribution along the interface was presented for vertical, lateral, and oblique loading of selected implant models. Finite element (FE) numerical simulation result shows that the orthotropic material model is more acceptable than the isotropic material model to predict stress along bone-implant interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

D :

elastic stiffness parameter

E :

elastic modulus, N/mm2

G :

shear moduli, N/mm2

μ :

Poisson’s ratio

ϒ :

engineering material constant

References

  1. Roy, S., Dey, S., Khutia, N., Chowdhury, A. R., & Datta, S. (2018). Design of patient specific dental implant using FE analysis and computational intelligence techniques. Applied Soft Computing, 65, 272–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Macedo, J. P., Pereira, J., Faria, J., Pereira, C. A., Alves, J. L., Henriques, B., Souza, J. C. M., & Lopez-Lopez, J. (2017). Finite element analysis of stress extent at peri-implant bone surrounding external hexagon or Morse taper implants. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 71, 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hasan, I., Röger, B., Heinemann, F., Keilig, L., & Bourauel, C. (2012). Influence of abutment design on the success of immediately loaded dental implants: experimental and numerical studies. Medical Engineering & Physics, 34, 817–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cavallaro, J., & Greenstein, G. (2011). Angled implant abutments: a practical application of available knowledge. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 142, 150–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Okumura, N., Stegaroiu, R., Nishiyama, H., Kurokawa, K., Kitamura, E., Hayashi, T., et al. (2011). Finite element analysis of I plant-embedded maxilla model from CT data: comparison with the conventional model. Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 55, 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tian, K., Chen, J., Han, L., Yang, J., Huang, W., & Wu, D. (2012). Angled abutments result in increased or decreased stress on surrounding bone of single-unit dental I plants: a finite element analysis. Medical Engineering & Physics, 34, 1526–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Adell, R., Lekholm, U., Rockler, B., & Branemark, P. I. (1981). 15-Year.Study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Journal of Oral Surgery, 10, 387–416.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Branemark, R., Branemark, P. I., Rydevik, B., & Myers, R. (2001). Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation. A review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 38(2), 175–181.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Branemark, P. I., Breine, U., Adell, R., Hansson, O., Lindstom, J., & Ohlsson. (1969). Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 3, 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Branemark, P. I. (1983). Osseointegration and its experimental background. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 50(3), 399–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schenk, R. K., & Buser, D. (1998). Osseointegration: a reality. Periodontology, 2000, 17, 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vanegas-Acosta, J. C., Landinez P, N. S., Garzón-Alvarado, D. A., & Casale R, M. C. (2011). A finite element method approach for the mechanobiological modeling of the osseoinegration of a dental implant. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 101, 297–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor, D., Hazenberg, J. G., & Lee, T. C. (2007). Living with cracks: damage and repair in human bone. Nature Materials, 6(4), 263–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gao, J., Xu, W., & Ding, Z. (2006). 3D finite element mesh generation of complicated tooth model based on CT slices. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 82(2), 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Eijden, T. M. (2000). Biomechanics of the mandible. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine, 11(1), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gačnik, F., Ren, Z., & Hren, N. I. (2014). Modified bone density-dependent orthotropic material model of human mandibular bone. Medical Engineering & Physics, 361, 684–1692.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ding, X., Liao, S.-h., Zhu, X.-h., Wang, H.-m., & Zou, B.-j. (2015). Effect of orthotropic material on finite element modeling of completely dentate mandible. Materials and Design, 84, 144–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wirtz, D. C., Pandorf, T., Portheine, F., Radermacher, K., Schiffers, N., Prescher, A., et al. (2003). Concept and development of an orthotropic FE model of the proximal femur. Journal of Biomechanics, 36(2), 289–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peng, L., Bai, J., Zeng, X., & Zhou, Y. (2006). Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Medical Engineering & Physics, 28, 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lengsfeld, M., Schmitt, J., Alter, P., Kaminsky, J., & Leppek, R. (1998). Comparison of geometry-based and CT voxel-based finite element modeling and experimental validation. Medical Engineering & Physics, 20(7), 515–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kluess, D., Souffrant, R., Mittelmeier, W., Wree, A., Schmitz, K.-P., & Bader, R. (2009). A convenient approach for finite-element-analyses of orthopedic implants in bone contact: modeling and experimental validation. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 95, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wirtz, D. C., Schiffers, N., Pandorf, T., Radermacher, K., Weichert, D., & Forst, R. (2000). Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. Journal of Biomechanics, 33(10), 1325–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rho, J. Y., Hobatho, M. C., & Ashman, R. B. (1995). Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Medical Engineering & Physics, 17(5), 347–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taddei, F., Pancanti, A., & Viceconti, M. (2004). An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Medical Engineering & Physics, 26(1), 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keyak, J. H., & Falkinstein, Y. (2003). Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. Medical Engineering & Physics, 25(9), 781–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor, W. R., Roland, E., Ploeg, H., Hertig, D., Klabunde, R., Warner, M. D., et al. (2002). Determination of orthotropic bone elastic constants using FEA and modal analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 35(6), 767–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dhatrak, P., Shirsat, U., Sumanth, S., & Deshmukh, V. (2018). Finite element analysis and experimental investigations on stress distribution of dental implants around implant-bone interface. Materials Today: Proceedings, 55, 641–5648.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dhatrak, P., Shirsat, U., Deshmukh, V., Sumanth, S. (2018) Fatigue life prediction of commercial dental implant using analytical approach and verification by FEA, Proceedings of Fatigue, Durability and Fracture Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering 203–212.

  29. ABAQUS, Version 6.7 Documentation, ABAQUS Analysis Manual, Simulia, Dassault Systems, RI, USA 2007.

  30. San Antonio, T., Ciaccia, M., Muller-karger, C., & Casanova, E. (2012). Orientation of Orthotropic material properties in a femur FE model: a method based on the principal stresses directions. Medical Engineering & Physis, 34, 914–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jalali, S. K., Yarmohammadi, R., & Maghsoudi, F. (2016). Finite element stress analysis of functionally graded dental implant of a premolar tooth. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 30(11), 4919–4923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zykova, Y., Kudryavtseva, V., Gai, M., Kozelskaya, A., Frueh, J., Sukhorukov, G., & Tverdohlebov, S. (2019). Free-standing microchamber arrays as a biodegradable drug depot system for implant coatings. European Polymer Journal, 114, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.02.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gai, M., Kurochkin, M. A., Li, D., Khlebtsov, B. N., Dong, L., Tarakina, N., Poston, R., Gould, D. J., Frueh, J., & Sukhorukov, G. B. (2018). In-situ NIR-laser mediated bioactive substance delivery to single cell for EGFP expression based on biocompatible microchamber-arrays. Journal of Controlled Release, 276, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.02.044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gai, M., Frueh, J., Kudryavtseva, V. L., Yashchenok, A. M., & Sukhorukov, G. B. (2017). Polylactic acid sealed polyelectrolyte multilayer microchambers for entrapment of salts and small hydrophilic molecules precipitates. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 9, 16536–16,545. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b03451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gai, M., Li, W., Frueh, J., & Sukhorukov, G. B. (2019). Polylactic acid sealed polyelectrolyte complex microcontainers for controlled encapsulation and NIR-laser based release of cargo. Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, 173, 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.10.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ipek Karacan, I., Macha, G., Choi, S., & Cazalbou, B. (2017). Ben-Nissan, antibiotic containing poly lactic acid/hydroxyapatite biocomposite coatings for dental implant applications. Key Engineering Materials, 758, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.4028//www.scientific.net//KEM.758.120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim, S., Myung, W.-C., Lee, J.-S., Chai, J.-K., Jung, U.-W., Yang, H.-C., Lee, I.-S., & Choi, S.-H. (2011). The effect of fibronectin-coated implant on canine osseointegration. Journal of Periodontal Implant Science, 41, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2011.41.5.242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work is supported by Board of College and University Development (BCUD) Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, India, and M. A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Pune, India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Scholar ZCOER, MIT-WPU, Pune, 411038, India

    Pankaj Dhatrak & Vedant Girme

  2. School of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Vishwanath Karad MIT-WPU (Formerly MAEER’S MIT, Pune), Pune, 411038, India

    Pankaj Dhatrak & Vedant Girme

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dhole Patil College of Engineering, Pune, 412207, India

    Uddhav Shirsat

  4. Department of Periodontic, M. A. Rangoonwal College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Pune, 411001, India

    S. Sumanth

  5. International Clinical Dental Research Organisation, Pune, 411038, India

    Vijay Deshmukh

Authors
  1. Pankaj Dhatrak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vedant Girme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Uddhav Shirsat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Sumanth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vijay Deshmukh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pankaj Dhatrak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None

Research Involving Humans and Animals Statement

None.

Informed Consent

None.

Funding Statement

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dhatrak, P., Girme, V., Shirsat, U. et al. Significance of Orthotropic Material Models to Predict Stress Around Bone-Implant Interface Using Numerical Simulation. BioNanoSci. 9, 652–659 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12668-019-00649-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12668-019-00649-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation