World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Implant Insertion Torque Load Analysis for Mandible using CBCT Images

CJ Venkatakrishnan

Citation Information : Venkatakrishnan C. Implant Insertion Torque Load Analysis for Mandible using CBCT Images. World J Dent 2017; 8 (3):183-189.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1435

Published Online: 00-06-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

Osteoporotic patients require particular attention to their implant site bone quality as an indication of prognosis and may require modified surgical technique Insertion Torque (IT).

Aim

It is the purpose of this study to test whether IT is significantly correlated with bone density or not, as assessed by the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a group of osteopenic and osteoporotic patients.

Materials and methods

A total of 30 patients were included in the study. The mandibular second premolar region was chosen as the site of investigation to prevent variability in surgical implant placement technique in different locations affecting bone mineral density (BMD). Partially, edentulous female patients between 51 and 60 years of age who were scheduled to receive implant placement were recruited for the study. CBCT (Master Series 3D Dental Imaging) was used for preoperative evaluation of the jaws for each patient. Materialise's Interactive Medical Image Control System (MIMICS) was used to process stacks of 2D images from CBCT. Finite element analysis were carried out on bone using Ansys software. Maximum displacement and maximum stress—strain patterns were compared in normal, osteoporotic, and osteopenic groups.

Results

The difference in mean bone density in all three groups were statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 1). FEA at 32, 36, 40 N in all 3 groups was statistically significant. (Table 2).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the study, the amount of stress—strain that exhibits at 40 N load in normal bone will be almost the same stress—strain given at 32 N load in osteoporotic bone. Normal IT load analysis exhibits more stress/strain in osteoporotic patients when compared with other groups, showing that IT must be achieved to an optimum level to avoid further complication and failures.

How to cite this article

Venkatakrishnan CJ, Bhuminathan S, Chandran CR. Implant Insertion Torque Load Analysis for Mandible using CBCT Images. World J Dent 2017;8(3):183-189.


PDF Share
  1. Local risk factors for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24 (Suppl):28-38.
  2. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface. Clin Mater 1992;10(3):153-201.
  3. The excessive loss of Brånemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991 Jan;62(1):2-4.
  4. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988 Summer;3(2):129-134.
  5. Early failures in 4641 consecutively placed Brånemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991 Summer;6(2):142-146.
  6. A meta-analysis examining the clinical survivability of machined-surfaced and osseotite implants in poor-quality bone. Implant Dent 2003;12(1):87-96.
  7. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of late oral implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 Jul;19(7):670-676.
  8. Changes to osteoporosis prevalence according to method of risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 2007 Feb;22(2):228-234.
  9. Outcomes of dental implants in osteoporotic patients. A literature review. J Prosthodont 2009 Jun;18(4):309-323.
  10. Correlation between dental implant insertion torque and mandibular alveolar bone density in osteopenic and osteoporotic subjects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 Jul-Aug;27(4):888-893.
  11. Osteoporosis: a still increasing prevalence. Bone 2006 Feb;38(2 Suppl 1):S4-S9.
  12. Osteoporosis and implant failure: an exploratory case-control study. J Periodontol 2000 Apr;71(4):625-631.
  13. Report of a WHO Study Group. WHO Technical Report Series 843. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.
  14. Correlation between bone quality evaluated by cone-beam computerized tomography and implant primary stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009 Jan-Feb;24(1):59-64.
  15. Available from: http://uc.materialise.com/mimics/.
  16. Available from: http://paltechsystems.com .
  17. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 2007 Apr;34(4):267-272.
  18. Biomechanical aspects of primary implant stability: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009 Jun;11(2):113-119.
  19. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone and cutting Torque values at implant placement: a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Mar-Apr;20(2):253-260.
  20. Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral Density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003 Oct;14(5):616-620.
  21. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001 Feb;12(1):79-84.
  22. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 2006 Dec;33(12):881-888.
  23. Relations between the bone density values from computerized tomography, and implant stability parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clin Periodontol 2007 Aug;34(8):716-722.
  24. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):290-297.
  25. Influence of estrogen status on endosseous implant osseointegration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001 Nov;59(11):1285-1289; discussion 1290-1291.
  26. Survival of dental implants in post-menopausal bisphosphonate users. J Prosthodont Res 2010 Jul;54(3):108-111.
  27. Survival of dental implants among post-menopausal female dental school patients taking oral bisphosphonates: a retrospective study. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2011 Jul-Aug;32(6):E106-E109.
  28. Effect of osteoporotic status on the survival of titanium dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008 Sep-Oct;23(5):905-910.
  29. Relationship between systemic bone mineral density and local bone quality as effectors of dental implant survival. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011 Mar;13(1):29-33.
  30. Interpretation basics of cone beam computed tomography. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:130115
  31. Periimplant diseases: treatment and management. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:070215
  32. Placement of implant in close proximity to supernumerary tooth. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:040415
  33. Cone beam computed tomography functionalities in dentistry. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:040515
  34. Etiology, complications, key systemic and environmental risk factors in dental implant failure. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:010615
  35. Survival of short dental implants. ≤7 mm: a review. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:011015
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.