Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)
Identifieur interne : 000738 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000737; suivant : 000739Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)
Auteurs : Y. Sato ; K. Uchida ; T. Okuyama ; N. KitagawaSource :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2012-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Blackwell publishing, Buccal, Cantilever, Cantilever portion, Compressive loads, Dentistry, Fatigue failure, Full load, Geometric analysis, Geriatric dentistry, Gold screw, Gure, Implant, Implants placement, Load distribution, Mandibular region, Maxillofac, Maximum load, Multiple implants, Oral maxillofac implants, Rangert, Tensile force, Tensile load, Total load.
- Teeft :
- Blackwell publishing, Buccal, Cantilever, Cantilever portion, Compressive loads, Dentistry, Fatigue failure, Full load, Geometric analysis, Geriatric dentistry, Gold screw, Gure, Implant, Implants placement, Load distribution, Mandibular region, Maxillofac, Maximum load, Multiple implants, Oral maxillofac implants, Rangert, Tensile force, Tensile load, Total load.
Abstract
Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the number and the placement of implants on load distribution for multiple implants with three‐dimensional geometric analysis, and to verify the well‐known conceptual figure by Rangert. Three teeth missing in left mandibular region was geometrically modelled in clinically simulated situation. Two implants placement as ‘control’, ‘cantilever’, ‘three‐implants’ and ‘offset placements’ were analyzed with geometric analysis. The cantilever received 180–182% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (200%). Three implants received 59–65% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (67%). Offset arrangement received 59–65% load of control, that is, larger than the result by Rangert (40%). It was concluded that the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution presented in the conceptual figure by (Rangert BR, Sullivan RM & Jemt TM, J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:360) was verified except for the effects of the offset arrangement.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02270.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title><author><name sortKey="Sato, Y" sort="Sato, Y" uniqKey="Sato Y" first="Y." last="Sato">Y. Sato</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Uchida, K" sort="Uchida, K" uniqKey="Uchida K" first="K." last="Uchida">K. Uchida</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Okuyama, T" sort="Okuyama, T" uniqKey="Okuyama T" first="T." last="Okuyama">T. Okuyama</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kitagawa, N" sort="Kitagawa, N" uniqKey="Kitagawa N" first="N." last="Kitagawa">N. Kitagawa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02270.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000738</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000738</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title><author><name sortKey="Sato, Y" sort="Sato, Y" uniqKey="Sato Y" first="Y." last="Sato">Y. Sato</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Uchida, K" sort="Uchida, K" uniqKey="Uchida K" first="K." last="Uchida">K. Uchida</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Okuyama, T" sort="Okuyama, T" uniqKey="Okuyama T" first="T." last="Okuyama">T. Okuyama</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kitagawa, N" sort="Kitagawa, N" uniqKey="Kitagawa N" first="N." last="Kitagawa">N. Kitagawa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">39</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="446">446</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="449">449</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">4</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-06">2012-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Buccal</term><term>Cantilever</term><term>Cantilever portion</term><term>Compressive loads</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Fatigue failure</term><term>Full load</term><term>Geometric analysis</term><term>Geriatric dentistry</term><term>Gold screw</term><term>Gure</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implants placement</term><term>Load distribution</term><term>Mandibular region</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Maximum load</term><term>Multiple implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Rangert</term><term>Tensile force</term><term>Tensile load</term><term>Total load</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Buccal</term><term>Cantilever</term><term>Cantilever portion</term><term>Compressive loads</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Fatigue failure</term><term>Full load</term><term>Geometric analysis</term><term>Geriatric dentistry</term><term>Gold screw</term><term>Gure</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implants placement</term><term>Load distribution</term><term>Mandibular region</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Maximum load</term><term>Multiple implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Rangert</term><term>Tensile force</term><term>Tensile load</term><term>Total load</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the number and the placement of implants on load distribution for multiple implants with three‐dimensional geometric analysis, and to verify the well‐known conceptual figure by Rangert. Three teeth missing in left mandibular region was geometrically modelled in clinically simulated situation. Two implants placement as ‘control’, ‘cantilever’, ‘three‐implants’ and ‘offset placements’ were analyzed with geometric analysis. The cantilever received 180–182% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (200%). Three implants received 59–65% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (67%). Offset arrangement received 59–65% load of control, that is, larger than the result by Rangert (40%). It was concluded that the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution presented in the conceptual figure by (Rangert BR, Sullivan RM & Jemt TM, J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:360) was verified except for the effects of the offset arrangement.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>rangert</json:string><json:string>cantilever</json:string><json:string>load distribution</json:string><json:string>geometric analysis</json:string><json:string>gure</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>gold screw</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>maximum load</json:string><json:string>tensile load</json:string><json:string>blackwell publishing</json:string><json:string>buccal</json:string><json:string>implants placement</json:string><json:string>multiple implants</json:string><json:string>tensile force</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>compressive loads</json:string><json:string>geriatric dentistry</json:string><json:string>mandibular region</json:string><json:string>total load</json:string><json:string>full load</json:string><json:string>cantilever portion</json:string><json:string>fatigue failure</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Y. SATO</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>K. UCHIDA</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>T. OKUYAMA</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>N. KITAGAWA</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>arrangement of implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implants on load distribution</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>three‐dimensional geometric analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>figure by Rangert</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOOR2270</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-TB2CFCV4-D</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the number and the placement of implants on load distribution for multiple implants with three‐dimensional geometric analysis, and to verify the well‐known conceptual figure by Rangert. Three teeth missing in left mandibular region was geometrically modelled in clinically simulated situation. Two implants placement as ‘control’, ‘cantilever’, ‘three‐implants’ and ‘offset placements’ were analyzed with geometric analysis. The cantilever received 180–182% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (200%). Three implants received 59–65% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (67%). Offset arrangement received 59–65% load of control, that is, larger than the result by Rangert (40%). It was concluded that the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution presented in the conceptual figure by (Rangert BR, Sullivan RM & Jemt TM, J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:360) was verified except for the effects of the offset arrangement.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>160</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1066</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><score>5.35</score><pdfWordCount>1430</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>8602</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>4</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title><pmid><json:string>22136614</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string></publisherId><volume>39</volume><issue>6</issue><pages><first>446</first><last>449</last><total>4</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Rangert et al.</json:string><json:string>Rangert et al. (1997)</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-TB2CFCV4-D</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02270.x</json:string></doi><id>0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title><title level="a" type="short">VERIFICATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF IMPLANTS</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Y.</forename><surname>SATO</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">K.</forename><surname>UCHIDA</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">T.</forename><surname>OKUYAMA</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">N.</forename><surname>KITAGAWA</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-TB2CFCV4-D</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02270.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOOR2270</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR2270.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jor.2012.39.issue-6</idno><idno type="product">JOOR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">39</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="446">446</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="449">449</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">4</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Summary </hi> The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the number and the placement of implants on load distribution for multiple implants with three‐dimensional geometric analysis, and to verify the well‐known conceptual figure by Rangert. Three teeth missing in left mandibular region was geometrically modelled in clinically simulated situation. Two implants placement as ‘control’, ‘cantilever’, ‘three‐implants’ and ‘offset placements’ were analyzed with geometric analysis. The cantilever received 180–182% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (200%). Three implants received 59–65% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (67%). Offset arrangement received 59–65% load of control, that is, larger than the result by Rangert (40%). It was concluded that the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution presented in the conceptual figure by (Rangert BR, Sullivan RM & Jemt TM, J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:360) was verified except for the effects of the offset arrangement.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">arrangement of implants</term><term xml:id="k2">implants on load distribution</term><term xml:id="k3">three‐dimensional geometric analysis</term><term xml:id="k4">figure by Rangert</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi><issn type="print">0305-182X</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06106"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.2012.39.issue-6</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="39">39</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="6">6</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-06">June 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="7" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02270.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR2270"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="4"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.1.3 standalone mode:FullText" date="2012-05-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-12-05"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-12-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-05-05"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-02-25"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="446">446</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="449">449</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Yuji Sato, Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University, School of Dentistry, 2‐1‐1, Kitasenzoku, Ohta‐ku, Tokyo 145‐8515, Japan.
E‐mail: <email normalForm="sato-@dent.showa-u.ac.jp">sato‐@dent.showa‐u.ac.jp</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR2270.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 15 October 2011</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="11"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title><title type="shortAuthors">Y. SATO <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">VERIFICATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF IMPLANTS</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Y.</givenNames><familyName>SATO</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>K.</givenNames><familyName>UCHIDA</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>T.</givenNames><familyName>OKUYAMA</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>N.</givenNames><familyName>KITAGAWA</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="aff-1-1" countryCode="JP"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">arrangement of implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">implants on load distribution</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">three‐dimensional geometric analysis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">figure by Rangert</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Summary </b> The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the number and the placement of implants on load distribution for multiple implants with three‐dimensional geometric analysis, and to verify the well‐known conceptual figure by Rangert. Three teeth missing in left mandibular region was geometrically modelled in clinically simulated situation. Two implants placement as ‘control’, ‘cantilever’, ‘three‐implants’ and ‘offset placements’ were analyzed with geometric analysis. The cantilever received 180–182% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (200%). Three implants received 59–65% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (67%). Offset arrangement received 59–65% load of control, that is, larger than the result by Rangert (40%). It was concluded that the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution presented in the conceptual figure by (Rangert BR, Sullivan RM & Jemt TM, J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:360) was verified except for the effects of the offset arrangement.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>VERIFICATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF IMPLANTS</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Y.</namePart><namePart type="family">SATO</namePart><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">K.</namePart><namePart type="family">UCHIDA</namePart><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">T.</namePart><namePart type="family">OKUYAMA</namePart><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">N.</namePart><namePart type="family">KITAGAWA</namePart><affiliation>Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-06</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 15 October 2011</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">11</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of the number and the placement of implants on load distribution for multiple implants with three‐dimensional geometric analysis, and to verify the well‐known conceptual figure by Rangert. Three teeth missing in left mandibular region was geometrically modelled in clinically simulated situation. Two implants placement as ‘control’, ‘cantilever’, ‘three‐implants’ and ‘offset placements’ were analyzed with geometric analysis. The cantilever received 180–182% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (200%). Three implants received 59–65% load of control, that is, almost same to the result by Rangert (67%). Offset arrangement received 59–65% load of control, that is, larger than the result by Rangert (40%). It was concluded that the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution presented in the conceptual figure by (Rangert BR, Sullivan RM & Jemt TM, J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:360) was verified except for the effects of the offset arrangement.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>arrangement of implants</topic><topic>implants on load distribution</topic><topic>three‐dimensional geometric analysis</topic><topic>figure by Rangert</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0305-182X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>39</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>446</start><end>449</end><total>4</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-TB2CFCV4-D</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02270.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR2270</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000738 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000738 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0EF15254ECE50CFABB8379A22431BE76390FCC72
|texte= Verification of the influence of the arrangement of implants on the load distribution (a well‐known figure by Rangert)
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |