Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution
Identifieur interne : 003975 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003974; suivant : 003976Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution
Auteurs : Laurent Pierrisnard ; Franck Renouard ; Patrick Renault ; Michel BarquinsSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2003-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment screw, Anchorage, Apical, Bicortical, Bicortical anchorage, Bicortical implant, Biomechanical, Bone stress, Cancellous, Cancellous bone, Cervical, Cervical area, Clinical implant dentistry, Cortical bone, Dental implants, Finite element analysis, Gold screw, Histogram charting stress intensity, Implant, Implant components, Implant displacement, Implant length, Implant neck, Long implants, Maxillofac, Mechanical properties, Monocortical, Monocortical anchorage, Monocortical implant, Occlusal load, Oral maxillofac implants, Short implants, Stress distribution, Stress increase, Stress intensity, Titanium abutment screw, Various isostress ranges.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment screw, Anchorage, Apical, Bicortical, Bicortical anchorage, Bicortical implant, Biomechanical, Bone stress, Cancellous, Cancellous bone, Cervical, Cervical area, Clinical implant dentistry, Cortical bone, Dental implants, Finite element analysis, Gold screw, Histogram charting stress intensity, Implant, Implant components, Implant displacement, Implant length, Implant neck, Long implants, Maxillofac, Mechanical properties, Monocortical, Monocortical anchorage, Monocortical implant, Occlusal load, Oral maxillofac implants, Short implants, Stress distribution, Stress increase, Stress intensity, Titanium abutment screw, Various isostress ranges.
Abstract
Background: Short implants present superior failure rates for everybody. Purpose: The aim of this theoretic study was to assess to what extent implant length and bicortical anchorage affect the way stress is transferred to implant components, the implant proper, and the surrounding bone. Materials and Methods: Stress analysis was performed using finite element analysis. A three‐dimensional linear elastic model was generated. All implants modeled were of the same diameter (3.75 mm) but varied in length, at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 mm (Branemark System®, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Each implant was modeled with a titanium abutment screw and abutment, a gold cylinder and prosthetic screw, and a ceramic crown. The implants were seated in a supporting bone structure consisting of cortical and cancellous bone. An occlusal load of 100 N was applied at a 30° angle to the buccolingual plane. Results: With the selected model and bone properties, the coronal cortical anchorage was dominating, and the bone stress concentrated to that area. Conclusions: The maximum bone stress was virtually constant, independent of implant length and bicortical anchorage. The maximum implant stress, however, increased somewhat with implant length and bicortical anchorage.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title><author><name sortKey="Pierrisnard, Laurent" sort="Pierrisnard, Laurent" uniqKey="Pierrisnard L" first="Laurent" last="Pierrisnard">Laurent Pierrisnard</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: laurent.pierrisnard@wanadoo.fr</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Renouard, Franck" sort="Renouard, Franck" uniqKey="Renouard F" first="Franck" last="Renouard">Franck Renouard</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Private practice, Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Renault, Patrick" sort="Renault, Patrick" uniqKey="Renault P" first="Patrick" last="Renault">Patrick Renault</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Barquins, Michel" sort="Barquins, Michel" uniqKey="Barquins M" first="Michel" last="Barquins">Michel Barquins</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Superieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle (ESPCI), Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003975</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003975</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title><author><name sortKey="Pierrisnard, Laurent" sort="Pierrisnard, Laurent" uniqKey="Pierrisnard L" first="Laurent" last="Pierrisnard">Laurent Pierrisnard</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: laurent.pierrisnard@wanadoo.fr</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Renouard, Franck" sort="Renouard, Franck" uniqKey="Renouard F" first="Franck" last="Renouard">Franck Renouard</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Private practice, Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Renault, Patrick" sort="Renault, Patrick" uniqKey="Renault P" first="Patrick" last="Renault">Patrick Renault</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Barquins, Michel" sort="Barquins, Michel" uniqKey="Barquins M" first="Michel" last="Barquins">Michel Barquins</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Superieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle (ESPCI), Paris, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="254">254</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="262">262</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12">2003-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screw</term><term>Anchorage</term><term>Apical</term><term>Bicortical</term><term>Bicortical anchorage</term><term>Bicortical implant</term><term>Biomechanical</term><term>Bone stress</term><term>Cancellous</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Cervical</term><term>Cervical area</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Cortical bone</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Finite element analysis</term><term>Gold screw</term><term>Histogram charting stress intensity</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant displacement</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant neck</term><term>Long implants</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Mechanical properties</term><term>Monocortical</term><term>Monocortical anchorage</term><term>Monocortical implant</term><term>Occlusal load</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Short implants</term><term>Stress distribution</term><term>Stress increase</term><term>Stress intensity</term><term>Titanium abutment screw</term><term>Various isostress ranges</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screw</term><term>Anchorage</term><term>Apical</term><term>Bicortical</term><term>Bicortical anchorage</term><term>Bicortical implant</term><term>Biomechanical</term><term>Bone stress</term><term>Cancellous</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Cervical</term><term>Cervical area</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Cortical bone</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Finite element analysis</term><term>Gold screw</term><term>Histogram charting stress intensity</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant displacement</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant neck</term><term>Long implants</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Mechanical properties</term><term>Monocortical</term><term>Monocortical anchorage</term><term>Monocortical implant</term><term>Occlusal load</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Short implants</term><term>Stress distribution</term><term>Stress increase</term><term>Stress intensity</term><term>Titanium abutment screw</term><term>Various isostress ranges</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Background: Short implants present superior failure rates for everybody. Purpose: The aim of this theoretic study was to assess to what extent implant length and bicortical anchorage affect the way stress is transferred to implant components, the implant proper, and the surrounding bone. Materials and Methods: Stress analysis was performed using finite element analysis. A three‐dimensional linear elastic model was generated. All implants modeled were of the same diameter (3.75 mm) but varied in length, at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 mm (Branemark System®, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Each implant was modeled with a titanium abutment screw and abutment, a gold cylinder and prosthetic screw, and a ceramic crown. The implants were seated in a supporting bone structure consisting of cortical and cancellous bone. An occlusal load of 100 N was applied at a 30° angle to the buccolingual plane. Results: With the selected model and bone properties, the coronal cortical anchorage was dominating, and the bone stress concentrated to that area. Conclusions: The maximum bone stress was virtually constant, independent of implant length and bicortical anchorage. The maximum implant stress, however, increased somewhat with implant length and bicortical anchorage.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>bicortical</json:string><json:string>implant length</json:string><json:string>bicortical anchorage</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>anchorage</json:string><json:string>cervical</json:string><json:string>short implants</json:string><json:string>cancellous</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>apical</json:string><json:string>long implants</json:string><json:string>monocortical</json:string><json:string>bone stress</json:string><json:string>abutment screw</json:string><json:string>biomechanical</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>cortical bone</json:string><json:string>cancellous bone</json:string><json:string>implant displacement</json:string><json:string>stress intensity</json:string><json:string>cervical area</json:string><json:string>finite element analysis</json:string><json:string>implant components</json:string><json:string>titanium abutment screw</json:string><json:string>bicortical implant</json:string><json:string>monocortical implant</json:string><json:string>various isostress ranges</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>occlusal load</json:string><json:string>gold screw</json:string><json:string>stress increase</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>stress distribution</json:string><json:string>mechanical properties</json:string><json:string>histogram charting stress intensity</json:string><json:string>implant neck</json:string><json:string>monocortical anchorage</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Laurent Pierrisnard DOS</name><affiliations><json:string>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</json:string><json:string>E-mail: laurent.pierrisnard@wanadoo.fr</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Franck Renouard DOS</name><affiliations><json:string>Private practice, Paris, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Patrick Renault DOS</name><affiliations><json:string>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Michel Barquins</name><affiliations><json:string>Research director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Superieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle (ESPCI), Paris, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bicortical anchorage</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone stress</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>finite element analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant length</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant stress</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID254</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-5FRXWSBV-R</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Short implants present superior failure rates for everybody. Purpose: The aim of this theoretic study was to assess to what extent implant length and bicortical anchorage affect the way stress is transferred to implant components, the implant proper, and the surrounding bone. Materials and Methods: Stress analysis was performed using finite element analysis. A three‐dimensional linear elastic model was generated. All implants modeled were of the same diameter (3.75 mm) but varied in length, at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 mm (Branemark System®, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Each implant was modeled with a titanium abutment screw and abutment, a gold cylinder and prosthetic screw, and a ceramic crown. The implants were seated in a supporting bone structure consisting of cortical and cancellous bone. An occlusal load of 100 N was applied at a 30° angle to the buccolingual plane. Results: With the selected model and bone properties, the coronal cortical anchorage was dominating, and the bone stress concentrated to that area. Conclusions: The maximum bone stress was virtually constant, independent of implant length and bicortical anchorage. The maximum implant stress, however, increased somewhat with implant length and bicortical anchorage.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.774</score><pdfWordCount>3446</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>21087</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>576 x 791.759 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>194</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1275</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title><pmid><json:string>15127996</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>254</first><last>262</last><total>9</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2003</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>AB</json:string><json:string>France MATERIALS AND METHODS Finite</json:string><json:string>BC Decker Inc</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>University of Paris</json:string><json:string>ALGOR Interactive Systems, Inc., Pittsburgh</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Pierrisnard</json:string><json:string>Morgan</json:string><json:string>Franck Renouard</json:string><json:string>Rangert</json:string><json:string>Oosterwyck</json:string><json:string>Meijer</json:string><json:string>Patrick Renault</json:string><json:string>Ivanoff</json:string><json:string>Laurent Pierrisnard</json:string><json:string>Von Uises</json:string><json:string>Diagram</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Paris</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Gif-sur-Yvette</json:string><json:string>France</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-5FRXWSBV-R</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><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x</json:string></doi><id>74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12"></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">Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Laurent</forename><surname>Pierrisnard</surname><roleName type="degree">DOS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Reprint requests: Laurent Pierrisnard, 133 rue Lamarck, 75018, Paris; e‐mail: laurent.pierrisnard@wanadoo.fr</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Franck</forename><surname>Renouard</surname><roleName type="degree">DOS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Private practice, Paris, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Patrick</forename><surname>Renault</surname><roleName type="degree">DOS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Michel</forename><surname>Barquins</surname></persName><affiliation>Research director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Superieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle (ESPCI), Paris, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-5FRXWSBV-R</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID254</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID254.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2003.5.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="254">254</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="262">262</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p>
<hi rend="italic">Background</hi>: Short implants present superior failure rates for everybody.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Purpose</hi>: The aim of this theoretic study was to assess to what extent implant length and bicortical anchorage affect the way stress is transferred to implant components, the implant proper, and the surrounding bone.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Materials and Methods</hi>: Stress analysis was performed using finite element analysis. A three‐dimensional linear elastic model was generated. All implants modeled were of the same diameter (3.75 mm) but varied in length, at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 mm (Branemark System®, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Each implant was modeled with a titanium abutment screw and abutment, a gold cylinder and prosthetic screw, and a ceramic crown. The implants were seated in a supporting bone structure consisting of cortical and cancellous bone. An occlusal load of 100 N was applied at a 30° angle to the buccolingual plane.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Results</hi>: With the selected model and bone properties, the coronal cortical anchorage was dominating, and the bone stress concentrated to that area.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Conclusions</hi>: The maximum bone stress was virtually constant, independent of implant length and bicortical anchorage. The maximum implant stress, however, increased somewhat with implant length and bicortical anchorage.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">bicortical anchorage</term><term xml:id="k2">bone stress</term><term xml:id="k3">finite element analysis</term><term xml:id="k4">implant length</term><term xml:id="k5">implant stress</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/74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284/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)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2003.5.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="5">5</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2003-12">December 2003</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0025400" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID254"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="9"></count></countGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2006-10-30"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2006-10-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-13"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="254">254</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="262">262</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Reprint requests: Laurent Pierrisnard, 133 rue Lamarck, 75018, Paris; e‐mail: <email>laurent.pierrisnard@wanadoo.fr</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID254.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="23"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Laurent</givenNames><familyName>Pierrisnard</familyName><degrees>DOS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Franck</givenNames><familyName>Renouard</familyName><degrees>DOS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Patrick</givenNames><familyName>Renault</familyName><degrees>DOS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Michel</givenNames><familyName>Barquins</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Private practice, Paris, France</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Research director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Superieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle (ESPCI), Paris, France</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">bicortical anchorage</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">bone stress</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">finite element analysis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">implant length</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">implant stress</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p> <i>Background</i>: Short implants present superior failure rates for everybody.</p><p> <i>Purpose</i>: The aim of this theoretic study was to assess to what extent implant length and bicortical anchorage affect the way stress is transferred to implant components, the implant proper, and the surrounding bone.</p><p> <i>Materials and Methods</i>: Stress analysis was performed using finite element analysis. A three‐dimensional linear elastic model was generated. All implants modeled were of the same diameter (3.75 mm) but varied in length, at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 mm (Branemark System®, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Each implant was modeled with a titanium abutment screw and abutment, a gold cylinder and prosthetic screw, and a ceramic crown. The implants were seated in a supporting bone structure consisting of cortical and cancellous bone. An occlusal load of 100 N was applied at a 30° angle to the buccolingual plane.</p><p> <i>Results</i>: With the selected model and bone properties, the coronal cortical anchorage was dominating, and the bone stress concentrated to that area.</p><p> <i>Conclusions</i>: The maximum bone stress was virtually constant, independent of implant length and bicortical anchorage. The maximum implant stress, however, increased somewhat with implant length and bicortical anchorage.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Laurent</namePart><namePart type="family">Pierrisnard</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DOS</namePart><affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: laurent.pierrisnard@wanadoo.fr</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Franck</namePart><namePart type="family">Renouard</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DOS</namePart><affiliation>Private practice, Paris, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Patrick</namePart><namePart type="family">Renault</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DOS</namePart><affiliation>Senior lecturer, Faculty of Dental Surgery Montrouge, University of Paris V, Department of Prosthetics, Paris, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michel</namePart><namePart type="family">Barquins</namePart><affiliation>Research director, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Superieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle (ESPCI), Paris, France</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">2003-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="references">23</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">5</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Background: Short implants present superior failure rates for everybody. Purpose: The aim of this theoretic study was to assess to what extent implant length and bicortical anchorage affect the way stress is transferred to implant components, the implant proper, and the surrounding bone. Materials and Methods: Stress analysis was performed using finite element analysis. A three‐dimensional linear elastic model was generated. All implants modeled were of the same diameter (3.75 mm) but varied in length, at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 mm (Branemark System®, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). Each implant was modeled with a titanium abutment screw and abutment, a gold cylinder and prosthetic screw, and a ceramic crown. The implants were seated in a supporting bone structure consisting of cortical and cancellous bone. An occlusal load of 100 N was applied at a 30° angle to the buccolingual plane. Results: With the selected model and bone properties, the coronal cortical anchorage was dominating, and the bone stress concentrated to that area. Conclusions: The maximum bone stress was virtually constant, independent of implant length and bicortical anchorage. The maximum implant stress, however, increased somewhat with implant length and bicortical anchorage.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>bicortical anchorage</topic><topic>bone stress</topic><topic>finite element analysis</topic><topic>implant length</topic><topic>implant stress</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</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">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>5</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>254</start><end>262</end><total>9</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-5FRXWSBV-R</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID254</identifier><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/74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284/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 003975 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003975 | 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:74A6AF563AC2406B598B1B6C558CBD183EEA6284
|texte= Influence of Implant Length and Bicortical Anchorage on Implant Stress Distribution
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |