Journal of Dental Implant Research :eISSN 2671-941X / pISSN

 

Table. 1.

Reviewed studies

Scope of the study Findings Reference
Different groove geometry evaluation on stress and bone regeneration Rectangular groove geometry is the lowest stress producer. Buttressed groove is the most suitable profile for small diameter conical implants. 2
Micro-movement evaluation of dental implants Structures with Co-Cr alloy show higher micro-motion. 7
Strain and displacement evaluation on osseointegration Limited osseointegration creates higher displacement. Therefore limited osseointegration has a negative effect on the lifetime of implants. 11
Potential risk evaluation of narrow-diameter implants Splinting has a positive effect on the mechanical behavior of dental implant. 18
To reveal the effects of bone density, bone thickness and bone type on stress M-12 implant has mor emechanical strength than Astra Tech in the cortical layer. 19
Effect of morse taper dental implants to surrounding tissue Compression stress is lower than bending and shear stresses on both tissue layer. 20
Surgical technique focused stress, strain, and displacement distribution Socket-shield technique does not effect negatively the mechanical acting. 21
Parameter effect on the biomechanical behavior of dental implant Length, diameter, and young modulus affect both maximum stress and strain in von mises. 22
Stress distribution evaluation in bone tissue with 2 different thread geometry Cylindrical neck model forces the bone tissue more than reverse conical neck model. 23
Stress distribution evaluation on cortical and spongy bone tissue Porosity location is more critical than porosity rate in view of stress distribution. 24
Implant neck wall thickness and abutment screw size effect evaluation on alveolar bone Implant neck wall thickness affects implants drastically. 25
Stress distribution on dental implants with different materials Implant with zirconia has more mechanical strength than titanium. Implant diameter with titanium-zirconium is smaller than pure titanium. 8
Transversal screw effect on stress distribution Load application angle of 15° has the lowest risk to failure on the implant. 26
Effect of fence on stress distribution The more fence number, the less stress on the tissue. 27
Stress distribution evaluation in view of polymers PEEK and PEKK show the highest maximum stress values in cortical bone on oblique loading. 9
External and internal threaded implant comparison Internal threaded implant is more reliable according to external one. 28
Biomechanical behavior evaluation of bioglass and zirconia Bioglass-zirconia dental implants showed improved biomechanical behavior over Bioglass-coated or monolithic zirconia dental implants. 10
Stress – strain distribution with narrow pitch, large pitch and grooved on vertical arc implants All types shows good performance in view of stress distribution but grooved type implant has more homogeneous strain. 3
Stress transfer to the surrounding bone tissue with different microgroove profiles on implant Threads with square profile are more stable than V profile. 4
Fatigue and micro-void formation in evaluation with implant diameter, connection type, and bone density Implants of 2-piece and diameter of less than 3.5 mm are critical for the posterior mandibular region. 29
Effect of different occlusion conditions on dental implants in different positions Right unilateral molars, dental implant system and the entire mandible tissue are faced with high stress under occlusion. 30
Fatigue curve obtaining with 5 different dental implants Fatigue life cycle is between 64976 and 256830 at approximately 200 MPa. 12
Implant neck geometry evaluation Implants with 10° and 20°neck configurations reduces the stress values in the bone tissue when compared to flat implant platforms. 13
Implant neck geometry evaluation Implant neck affected the stress distribution and size in cortical bone and cancellous bone tissues. 13
Investigation of stress distribution of tooth-implant-supported prosthesis in different connectors and different implant abutments Adding flexible connector and 3-piece abutment to the TISP makes the load is distributed and stress is transmitted. 31
Implant fatigue life verification The implant body root faced with the highest probability of failure. 14
Evaluation of the occlusal force distribution in the mandibular shortened dental arch (SDA) Same number of implant reconstructions as missing teeth show symmetrical occlusal feature. 15
Loosening performance and fatigue properties of dental implants Fatigue fracture of the screw occurs at the level of the first thread. 16
Experimental comparison of dental implants with 4 different neck designs 3∼6 week period is proper to the highest implant-bone contact value and three-ring neck design provided the optimum osseointegration. 32
Evaluation of the effect of bone reforming around a small diameter dental implant on the fatigue limit using finite element analysis ISO 14801 validated and fatigue resistance can be predicted with high accuracy without the need for bone-implant interface simulation. 33
Optimization of length and thread pitch by using photoelasticity test Plexiglass visualization is a good alternative to experimental studies. Results of experiment were similar to the finite element analysis results. 5
Effect of diameter and lenght on dental implants Decrease in length of implant equals to increase in stress. 34
Stress monitoring and determination and control of bite forces using MEMS to prevent occlusal trauma The relationship between loading forces and stresses on the alveolar bone and abutment can be described by sinus function. 17
Effect of diameter and bone quality on the dental implant Diameter of 3.3 mm in bone of quality 4 is prone to failure in implant. Similarly, diameter of 4.75 mm has maximum stress with bone quality 0-I. 35
To see and experimentally verify the implant-tissue contact area stress modelby numerical method Reversed buttressed thread created the maximum stress while V thread model has the least stress level. 6
Journal of Dental Implant Research 2022;41:50~63 https://doi.org/10.54527/jdir.2022.41.3.50
© J Dent Implant Res