Murat Cavit C ehreli Force transmission of one- and two-

Kvanc Akca
Haldun Iplikciog lu
piece morse-taper oral implants: a
nonlinear finite element analysis

Authors affiliation: Key words: bone, force transfer, implant design, morse-taper, one-piece implant, two-piece
Murat Cavit C ehreli, Kvanc Akca, Haldun implant
Iplikciog lu, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty
of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Shhye,
Ankara, Turkey Abstract
Correspondence to: Purpose: To compare force transmission behaviors of one-piece (1-P) and two-piece (2-P)
Murat Cavit C ehreli morse-taper oral implants.
Gazi Mustafa Kemal Bulvari
Material and methods: A three-dimensional finite element model of a morse-taper oral
61/11 06570 Maltepe
Ankara, Turkey implant and a solid abutment was constructed separately. The implantabutment complex
Tel.: 90 312 232 4073 was embedded in a 1.5 cm
1.5 cm acrylic resin cylinder. Vertical and oblique forces of 50 N
Fax: 90 312 311 3741
e-mail: mcehreli@hotmail.com; and 100 N were applied on the abutment and solved by two different analyses. First, contact
mcehreli@hacettepe.edu.tr analysis was performed in the implantabutment complex to evaluate a 2-P implant. Then,
the components were bonded with a separation force of 1020 N to analyze a 1-P implant.
Results: Von Mises stresses in the implant, principal stresses, and displacements in the resin
were the same for both designs under vertical loading. Under oblique loading, principal
stresses and displacement values in the resin were the same, but the magnitudes of Von
Mises stresses were higher in the 2-P implant. The principal stress distributions around both
implants in the acrylic bone were similar under both loading conditions.
Conclusion: 2-P implants experience higher mechanical stress under oblique loading.
Nevertheless, the 1-P- or 2-P morse-taper nature of an implant is not a decisive factor for the
magnitude and distribution of stresses, and displacements in supporting tissues.

Date:
Accepted 25 June 2003
To cite this article:
C ehreli MC, Akca K, Iplikcioglu H. Force transmission
of one- and two-piece morse-taper oral implants: a
nonlinear finite element analysis.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004; 481489
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01025.x
Copyright r Blackwell Munksgaard 2004
Oral implants must fulfill certain criteria
arising from special demands of function,
which include biocompatibility, adequate
mechanical strength, optimum soft and
hard tissue integration, and transmission
of functional forces to bone within physio-
logical limits (Albrektsson et al. 1981;
Brunski 1988; Wiskott & Belser 1999).
One of the critical elements influencing the
long-term uncompromised functioning of
an oral implant is its design. The rationale
for designing endosseous implants is based
either on biological requirements, where
biocompatibility and ameliorated tissue
healing are the primary goals or biomecha-
nical needs, and where controlling local
tissue strains in the vicinity of implants is
the main focus (Hansson 1999; Simmons
et al. 2001). Suprisingly, considerable
emphasis has been placed on implant
designing with the biological approach so
far, although biomechanical factors appear
to be predominant on implant survival
(Esposito et al. 1998).
The design of an implant characterized
by shape, implantabutment mating, sur-
face topography, and physio-chemical
composition determines its biological,
mechanical, and biomechanical behavior
(Brunski 1988; Kasemo & Lausma 1988;
Kieswetter et al. 1996). The surface macro-
and micro-roughness have decisive effects

481
C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants

on the bone apposition rate, quantity of the yield strength of the material, Von
bone-to-implant contact, boneimplant in- Mises stress criteria are important to inter-
terface strength (Thomas & Cook 1985; pret the stresses within the implant materi-
Buser et al. 1991; Wennerberg et al. 1995), al. To evaluate the stresses induced around
and intraosseous stresses and strains in the the implants in bone, principal stresses
vicinity of implants (Brunski 1988; Hans- (tensile and compressive stresses) were
son 1999; Simmons et al. 2001; Cehreli used, as these values are important for
et al. 2004). The implantabutment mating brittle materials such as bone.
design influences the stiffness of the
implant complex and thus, the ultimate
mechanical strength (Mollersten et al. Materials and methods
1997; Norton, 1997, 2000; Merz et al.
Three-dimensional finite element model
2000). When it comes to biomechanics,
The CAD model of a + 3.3 mm
10 mm
however, the effects of implantabutment
(neck + 4.8 mm) solid-screw morse-taper
mating design is a topic of debate (Cehreli
ITIs implant (Straumann Institute, Wal-
et al. 2004), as marginal bone levels and
denburg, Switzerland) and a 61 solid
biological outcomes of different designs are
abutment 4 mm in height (Straumann
similar (van Steenberghe et al. 2000; Mo-
Fig. 1. Actual morse-taper (2-P) and monoblock
Institute, Waldenburg, Switzerland) was
berg et al. 2001; Engquist et al. 2002;
(1-P) ITIs implants on the left and right sides, constructed separately using a computer
Heydenrijk et al. 2002).
respectively. software (I-DEAS Artisan Series 3.0, Struc-
In the last three decades, evolution in
tural Dynamics Research Corporation,
implant designs has embraced the treat-
Milford, OH, USA) (Akca et al. 2003).
ment of some particular cases involving
Although the collar design and the apical
early- and immediate-loading. The risk of
loads. The purpose of this study was, end of the actual monoblock ITIs implant
stress-generated mechanical implant fail-
therefore, to gain an insight into the force is different from the solid-screw morse-
ures has probably stimulated an interest for
transmission and distribution characteris- taper implant (Fig. 1), this CAD model was
developing stiffer implants. One-piece (1-P)
tics of 1-P and 2-P morse-taper implants used to analyze 1-P and 2-P implants, as
oral implants were manufactured princi-
using nonlinear finite element stress ana- our main purpose was to compare the
pally as the united implantabutment of
lysis (Fig. 1). During finite element analy- mechanical and biomechanical effects of
an already existing novel morse-taper and
sis, the mechanical evaluation of the internal-cone implantabutment mating
a butt-joint implant, namely: the ITIs
implantabutment complex was performed with a one-part implant. Because it was
(Straumann Institute, Waldenburg, Swit-
by Von Mises stresses. Von Mises stress also beyond the scope of this study to
zerland) implant and the Branemarks
values are used to define the beginning of evaluate the effects of thread design, the
(Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) im-
yield for ductile materials such as metallic threads of the implant body and the
plant. The rationale behind invention,
implants (Shigley 1986). As failure occurs abutment screw were not represented in
indications for use, as well as biological
when the Von Mises stress value exceeds their continuous helical characteristics, but
outcomes of these implants, however, has
not been well documented. Interestingly,
the utilization of 1-P implants has been
restricted in the mandibular symphysis
region for early-loading of mandibular bar-
retained overdentures with ITIs implants
(Buser et al. 1988) and to support immedi-
ately loaded full-arch 1-P fixed mandibular
prostheses with Novums System implants
(NobelBiocare) (Branemark et al. 1999). As
it is also not yet known whether 1-P
implants possess mechanical and biome-
chanical advantages over two-piece (2-P)
implants, an assessment in a strict scien-
tific sense is impossible. Owing to the
outstanding mechanical integrity of its
implantabutment junction (Merz et al.
2000), it was hypothesized that morse-
taper implants would transmit forces to
bone like 1-P implants, but have a dissim-
ilar mechanical behavior under bending Fig. 2. CAD model of the implant, abutment, and the resin cylinder.

482 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489

 C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants

as symmetric rings (Merz et al. 2000; Akca

et al. 2003). This implies that the screw
threads in these components were modeled
as independent rings, which were not in
contact with another. The CAD models
were transferred to the pre-processor
(MSC.MarcMetat 2000, MSC. Software
Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, USA.) for
finite element model conversion. The
implantabutment complex was embedded
vertically in the center of a + 1.5 cm

1.5 cm acrylic resin cylinder (Merz et al.
2000; Akca et al. 2003) (Fig. 2). The finite
element model was constructed using
eight-node isoparametric brick and four-
node isoparametric tetrahedral elements
leading to 13,296 elements in im-plant,
12,931 elements in abutment, and 12,288
elements in acrylic cylinder, resulting
in a total of 17,922 nodes in the model.
The following values were assumed for
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, respect-
ively: implant and abutment 114,000 MPa
and 0.369; acrylic resin 3000 MPa and 0.3
(Merz et al. 2000; Akca et al. in press). A
value of 0.5 was assumed for the friction
between titanium abutment and implant
surfaces for the contact analysis, as reported
by Abkowitz et al. (1995).

Load conditions and constraints

Vertical and perpendicular loading condi-
tions were simulated. Static vertical forces
of 50 and 100 N were applied separately as
a 36 face load on the top of the abutment
surface (Fig. 3a). To simulate an oblique
loading condition, these forces were also
applied separately and perpendicular to an
area consisting of a nine face load on the 61
inclined surface of the abutment (Fig. 3b).
Boundary conditions were established by
constraining the acrylic resin cylinder
circumferentially and from its bottom.
Finite element analysis
The contact area was defined between the
implant and the abutment. For contact
checking, the node-to-segment contact
mechanism was used. Load conditions
were obtained in two different analyses.
First, a contact analysis with normal
contact detection and separation behavior
was performed to evaluate a 2-P implant
design. In the second analysis, the implant
and the abutment were bonded to each
other with a separation force of 1020 N to
analyze a 1-P implant. Because of the
symmetric geometry of the implant, the
Fig. 3. (a) 36 face vertical load application on the solid abutment. (b) Nine face perpendicular load application on
the inclined surface of the solid abutment.
solutions were performed on half of the
model. A nonlinear finite element analysis
solver (MSC.Marc 2000, MSC.Software
Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, USA) was
used for processing the situations. The
analyses were performed using 10 incre-
mental solutions.
Post-processing scalar results
The pre-processor (MSC.MarcMetat 2000,
MSC. Software Corporation) was used for
the evaluation of post-processing scalar
results. Because of the symmetric geometry
of the model, Von Mises stresses in the
implant, principal stresses in the acrylic
resin, and displacement in direction-Y
(vertical implant displacement) were re-
corded on half of the implant collar for
vertical loading in an area consisting of nine
nodes on the mid-line cross-section of the
model (Fig. 4). For the oblique loading
condition, the force was applied from the
left side of the implant, where the inclined
surface of the abutment was located. This
loading created two sides, tension and
compression (Fig. 4), which were evaluated
with Von Mises stresses in the implant,
principal stresses in the acrylic resin and
displacement in direction-Y (vertical im-
plant displacement), and displacement in
direction-X (horizontal implant displace-
ment). During analysis in the tension and
compression sides, the stresses in nine
nodes were quantified and the mean of
the stresses in these nodes was calculated
for each side.

483 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489

C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants

2-P, two-piece; 1-P, one-piece; VL, vertical loading; OL, oblique loading; VM, Von Mises stress (MPa); PS, principal stress (MPa) (negative and positive values present compressive and tensile stresses, respectively);
 9.27

 8.72
Dis-X

 2.66
 7.54

6.97
Dis-Y

 1.624
 23.05

22.16
PS

10.91
100 N

230.7

223.8
VM

 4.65

 4.60
Dis-X

 1.33
 3.79

3.60
Dis-Y
Fig. 4. Tension and compression sides consisting of nine nodes each, indicating the location of measurements
around the collar of the implant. Measurements were undertaken only in half of the implant for vertical loading,

 0.809
 11.57

11.69
as the implant had a symmetric design.

PS
1-P implant
Results Oblique loading

5.35
116.1

118.4
Post-processing scalar results at compres-

50 N

VM
Vertical loading sion and tension sides are presented in
Von Mises stresses in the implant, principal Table 1. The principal stresses and displa-

 9.52

stresses minimum (compressive stresses)
in the acrylic cylinder, and vertical dis-
placement values are presented in Table 1.
 9.21
Dis-X
cement values were similar in both models.
Von Mises stresses were higher in the 2-P
design, revealing that this design experi-

 2.65
 7.72

In both models, compressive stresses were
observed in resin around the collar of the
implant. All values recorded in the 2-P
7.20
Dis-Y
enced higher mechanical stress under the
same loading in comparison with the 1-P
design. The principal stresses and displace-

 1.618
 23.76

23.25
model were the same as those in the 1-P ments decreased along the line from point 1
model. Principal stresses and vertical dis- to 9, as Von Mises stresses increased. PS
Table 1. Post-processing scalar results under vertical and oblique loading

placement values decreased along the line Differences were not observed between

Dis-Y, displacement in direction-Y (mm); Dis-X, displacement in direction-X (mm).

from point 1 to 9, as Von Mises stresses implant designs in the distribution of
10.36
100 N

244.6

236.6
vertical and horizontal displacements, Von
VM

increased. Under both loads, the amount of

vertical displacement and the magnitude Mises stresses, and principal stresses mini-
and distribution of principle stresses were mum and maximum under both loads. The
 5.07

 4.62
Dis-X

the same in both models. distribution of principal stresses maximum

The distribution of Von Mises stresses in and minimum within the resin was same
the abutment and at the implant collar in both models (Figs 7a and b, 8a and b).
 1.32
 4.10

3.69
Dis-Y

above the resin level was also comparable
between the models (Fig. 5a and b). An
even distribution of stresses was observed
The distribution of Von Mises stresses
between models was different, particularly
in the abutment and on the implant
 0.802
 12.66

11.76

in the abutment and the implant in the 1-P collar above the resin level (Fig. 9a and b).
model. In the 2-P model, Von Mises The 2-P model exhibited a wider distribu-
PS
2-P implant

stresses were intense in the abutment and tion of stresses in the morse-taper region
5.08

low stresses were observed in the implant (Fig. 9b). In both models, the distribution of
129.9

118.6
50 N

VM

collar above the resin level. The distribu- stresses was similar on the implantresin
tion of stresses was similar on the implant contact surface around the implant collar
OL compression

resin contact surface in both models. The (Fig. 9a and b). The distribution of displace-
distribution of vertical displacements in ments in the x-axis followed similar pat-
OL tension

both models above the resin level was terns in both models (Fig. 10a and b). For
different (Fig. 6a and b), whereas similar the distribution of displacements in y-axis
side

side

stress patterns were observed within the values, a separation behavior was observed
VL

resin. in the 2-P implant at the occlusal part of the

484 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489

 C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants

morse-taper joint on the tension side, but

similar distributions were observed in the
compression side in both models (Fig. 11a
and b).

Discussion

A complicating factor in finite element

stress analysis is the specification of the
conditions of the interaction between the
parts. Contact and friction have crucial
roles in the mechanical behaviors of two
parts of a complex including oral implants
(Sakaguchi & Borgersen 1995; Merz et al.
2000). As seen in the 1-P implant model, if
perfect bonding is present, the interface
conditions are automatically obtained by
letting nodes be part of the two bodies; the
solution is simple and fast. Perfect bonding,
however, is never the correct assumption
for oral implants, and for specific condi-
tions, specific parts will separate, or new
parts that were initially not in contact come
in contact. Eventually, more deformation
may be expected under load. For compre-
hensive structural analysis of an implant
abutment complex, linear approximation
will conceal the mechanical behaviors of
implants, particularly under bending forces
(Akca et al. 2002). In the present study,
although the same elastic modulus was
used for the implant and the abutment, the
thickness of the alloy surrounding the
abutment is reduced in the 2-P design,
which makes the 1-P design inherently
stiffer than the 2-P implant. Because of
Fig. 5. Distribution of Von Mises stresses for the 1-P (a) and 2-P (b) designs in the abutment and the implant at these structural differences and the friction
the collar region. between components, contact analysis

Fig. 6. Distribution of vertical displacements for the 1-P (a) and 2-P (b) designs. Note the displacement of the abutment in the 2-P design into the implant.

485 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489

C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants

Fig. 7. Distribution of principal stress maximum (a) and minimum (b) in resin under 100 N oblique load around the 1-P design.

Fig. 8. Distribution of principal stress maximum (a) and minimum (b) in resin under 100 N oblique load around the 2-P design.

was a requisite to elucidate the effect of
implantabutment mating. A non-linear
model of an implantabutment complex
with 1-P and 2-P solutions was therefore
compared in the present study. Only one
theoretical model was constructed for
correct comparison of two different solu-
tions. Because of the tapered interface
design studied, a high normal pressure is
maintained in the contact area, granting
stable retention of position by frictional
forces (Merz et al. 2000). Since the risk of
reaching the yield load by superimposing
external loads with the low axial preload
is reduced in the morse-taper design, the
mechanical effect of pre-load in the im-
plantabutment complex was not consid-
ered in the present study. To analyze the
force transfer characteristics, the implant
abutment complex was embedded in a
homogeneous structure, an acrylic resin
cylinder, which was assigned Youngs
modulus and Poissons ratio similar to that
of cancellous bone. This was undertaken to
eliminate the effects of variations in bone
structure, such as bone density and cortical
bone thickness. The rationale for analyzing
a reduced-diameter implant was to study
the worst case for morse-taper implants, as
there are no reported fractures of standard-
diameter (+ 4.1 mm) solid-screw ITIs
implants, but few incidences of reduced
diameter (+ 3.3 mm) implant fractures
(Schwarz 2000).
In this study, the 1-P implant design
experienced higher Von Mises stresses under
vertical loading. This was due to the
difference in force transfer mechanisms at
the implantabutment interface in the 2-P
design and resulted in 0.27 and 0.55 MPa
differences in stress magnitudes between
models under 50 and 100 N loads, respec-

486 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489

 C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants

Fig. 9. Distribution of Von Mises stresses under 100 N oblique load for 1-P (a) and 2-P (b) designs.

Fig. 10. Distributions of displacements in the x-axis for 1-P (a) and 2-P (b) designs under 100 N oblique load.

tively. Since these stresses are extremely
low, they do not seem to have any clinical
relevance on the mechanical as well as the
biomechanical outcome (Pilliar et al. 1986;
Szmukler-Moncler et al. 1998). Accord-
ingly, this finding also reveals that 1-P and
2-P morse-taper implants have similar force
transmission characteristics under vertical
loading. In essence, an implant having
an internal-cone or a one-part design does
not lead to any significant influence on
the mechanics of the implant as well as
the mechanical environment created in the
bone in vertical loading, as there will not
be a separation behavior between implant
components under axial loading of the
implant.
It was also observed for both cases that
the principal stresses and displacements
decreased along the line from point 1 to 9 as
Von Mises stresses increased. This was
because of the tilting and bending of the
implant within elastic limits in oblique
loading that created a wedging effect in the
bone simulant. Consequently, the applica-
tion of vertical or oblique loads caused a
vertical and/or horizontal displacement of
the implant, and the increasing diameter of
implant collar tended to enlarge the im-
plant socket. Nevertheless, one should take
into account that this behavior is only
descriptive and does not have any clinical
significance due to the low stresses and
displacements within elastic limits ob-
served in the bone simulant.
As a sequel of oblique loading, Von Mises
stresses in 2-P model were higher than the
1-P model, particularly under 100 N load.
Nevertheless, an extensive separation was
not observed in the 2-P implant and this
finding was attributed to the morse-taper
design and the friction between implant

487 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489

C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants
Fig. 11. Distributions of displacements in the y-axis for 1-P (a) and 2-P (b) designs under 100 N oblique load. Note the slight separation behavior of the abutment from the
implant in the 2-P design in the tension side.
components. Although the 2-P implant
collar is prone to bend and creates mechan-
ical stress within the implantabutment
complex, both implants distribute forces
evenly to the acrylic bone. The reduced
metal thickness around the abutment
screw results in an unfavorable bending of
the reduced-diameter (+ 3.3 mm) ITIs
implant under oblique forces (2-P design),
and this behavior may explain the reason
for fracture of the reduced diameter implant
(Schwarz 2000; Akca et al. 2003). In
clinical practice, it may therefore be
assumed that 1-P implants possess me-
chanical advantages over 2-P implants
under oblique loading. Nevertheless, since
the distribution of principal stresses and
displacement values in the resin were
almost the same, it is not expected to affect
bone response under functional loading.
Hence, it seems that the biomechanical
characterization of an actual 2-P ITIs
implant resembles a 1-P solid implant.
Resume
Le but de cette etude a ete de comparer les
comportements de la transmission de la force
desimplants buccaux en deux pie`ces. Un mode`le
delements finis tridimensionnels dun implant
buccal et dun pilier solide ont ete construits
separement. Le complexe implant/pilier a ete enfoui
dans un cylindre de resine acrylique dun diame`tre
1,5
1,5 cm. Des forces obliques et verticales de 50
et 100 N ont ete appliquees sur les piliers et
analysees par deux methodes. Dabord, lanalyse de
488 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489
contraste a ete effectuee dans le complexe implant/
pilier pour evaluer un implant en deux pie`ces.
Ensuite, les composants ont ete relies avec une force
de separation de 1020N pour analyser un implant en
une pie`ce. Les stress de Von Mises dans limplant,
les principaux stress et les deplacements dans la
resine etaient les memes pour les deux mode`les sous
charge verticale. Lorsquune charge oblique etait
appliquee, les stress principaux et les valeurs de
deplacements dans la resine etaient semblables mais
lamplitude des stress de Von Mises etait plus
importante dans limplant a` deux pie`ces. Les
distributions des stress principaux autour des deux
implants dans los acrylique etait semblable sous les
deux conditions de charge. Les implants en deux
pie`ces subissent un stress mecanique plus important
sous une charge oblique. Cependant, limplant en
une ou deux pie`ces avec un cone morse nest pas un
facteur decisif sur lamplitude et la distribution des
stress, et les deplacements des tissus de support.
Zusammenfassung
Kraftubertragung von ein- und zweiteiligen oralen
Implantaten mit konischem Sitz der Sekundarteile:
Eine nichtlineare Finite Element Analyse
Ziel: Die Kraftubertragungsverhaltnisse von ein-
und zweiteiligen oralen Implantaten mit konischem
Sitz der Sekundarteile zu untersuchen.
Material und Methoden: Es wurde je ein separates
dreidimensionales Finite Element Modell eines
oralen Implantats mit konischem Sitz der Sekun-
darteile und ein Massivsekundarteil konstruiert. Der
Implantat-Sekundarteilkomplex wurde in einem
Zylinder aus Acryl mit Durchmesser 1.5cm und
Lange 1.5cm eingebettet. Vertikale und schrage dos piezas. Despues, se unieron los componentes con
Krafte von 50 N und 100 N wurden auf das
Sekundarteil appliziert und durch zwei verschiedene
Analysen ausgewertet. Zuerst wurde eine Kontakta-
nalyse im Implantat-Sekundarteilkomplex zur Aus-
wertung eines zweiteiligen Implantats durchgefuhrt.
Dann wurden die Komponenten mit einer Separ-
ationskraft von 1020 N verbunden, um ein einteiliges
Implantat zu analysieren.
Resultate: Unter vertikaler Belastung waren der Van
Mises Stress im Implantat, der generelle Stress und
die Displatzierung im Kunststoff fur beide Kon-
struktionen gleich. Unter schrager Belastung waren
der generelle Stress und die Displatzierungswerte im
Kunststoff die gleichen, jedoch war das Ausmass des
von Mises Stress im zweiteiligen Implantat grosser.
Die generelle Stressverteilung im Akrylknochen um
die Implantate war unter beiden Belastungsbedin-
gungen ahnlich.
Schlussfolgerung: Zweiteilige Implantate erleiden
grosseren mechanischen Stress unter schrager Belas-
tung. Jedoch ist die ein- oder zweiteilige Konstruk-
tion mit konischem Sitz der Sekundarteile bei
Implantaten kein entscheidender Faktor fur das
Ausmass und die Verteilung des Stresses und fur
die Displatzierung in den Verankerungsgeweben.
Resumen
Intencion: Comparar los comportamientos de trans-
mision de fuerzas de implantes orales en cono morse
de una o dos piezas.
Material y metodos: Se construyeron separada-
mente un modelo tridimensional de elemento finito
de un implante oral de cono morse y un pilar solido.
El complejo implante-pilar se embebio en un cilindro
de resina acrlica de + 1.5 cm
1.5 cm. Se aplicaron
fuerzas oblicuas de 50 N y 100 N sobre el pilar y se
resolvieron por medio de dos analisis diferentes.
Primero, se llevo a cabo un analisis de contacto en el
complejo implante-pilar para evaluar un implante de
una fuerza de separacion de 1020 N para analizar un
implante de una sola pieza.
Resultados: El estres de Von Mises, el estres
principal, y el desplazamiento en la resina fueron

los mismos para ambos disenos bajo carga vertical.
Bajo carga oblicua, los valores de estres principal y
desplazamiento en resina fueron los mismos, pero la
magnitud de los estreses de Von Mises fueron
mayores en los implantes de dos piezas. Las
distribuciones del estres principal alrededor de ambos
implantes in el hueso acrlico fueron similares bajo
ambas condiciones de carga.
Conclusion: Los implantes de dos piezas experi-
mentan un estres mecanico mas alto bajo carga
oblicua. Sin embargo, la naturaleza de un implante
de cono morse de una o dos piezas no es un fac-
tor decisivo en la magnitud y distribucion de
los estreses, y desplazamientos en los tejidos de
soporte.
References
Abkowitz, S., Burke, J.J. & Hiltz, R.H. (1995)
Titanium in industry. New York: Van Nostrand
Co. Inc.
Akca, K., Cehreli, M.C. & Iplikcioglu, H. (2002)
Comparison of three-dimensional finite element
stress analysis with in-vitro strain gauge measure-
ments on dental implants. International Journal
of Prosthodontics 15: 115121.
Akca, K., Cehreli, M.C. & Iplikcioglu, H. (2003)
Evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of a
reduced-diameter morse-taper implant: a non-
linear finite element stress analysis. Clinical Oral
Implants Research 14: 444455.
Albrektsson, T., Branemark, P.-I., Hansson, H.-A.
& Lindstrom, J. (1981) Osseointegrated titanium
implant. Requirements for long lasting, direct
bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Ortho-
paedica Scandinavia 52: 155170.
Branemark, P.-I., Engstrand, P., O hrnell, L.-O.,
Grondahl, K., Nilsson, P., Hagberg, K., Darle, C.
& Lekholm, U. (1999) Branemark Novum: a new
treatment concept for rehabilitation of the eden-
tulous mandible. Preliminary results from a
prospective clinical follow-up study. Clinical
Implant Dentistry and Related Research 1:
216.
Brunski, J.B. (1988) Biomaterials and biomechanics
in dental implant design. International Journal of
Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 3: 8597.
Buser, D., Schenk, R.K., Steinemann, S., Fiorellini,
J.P., Fox, C.H. & Stich, H. (1991) Influence of
surface characteristics on bone integration of
titanium implants. A histomorphometric study
in miniature pigs. Journal of Biomedical Materials
Research 25: 889902.
Buser, D., Schroeder, A., Sutter, F. & Lang, N.P.
(1988) The new concept of ITI hollow-cylinder
and hollow-screw implants: Part 2. clinical
aspects, indications, and early clinical results.
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial
Implants 3: 173181.
Cehreli, M., Duyck, J., De Cooman, M., Puers, R. &
Naert, I. (2004) Implant design and interface force
transfer: a photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis.
Clinical Oral Implants Research 15: 249257.
Engquist, B., A strand, P., Dahlgren, S., Engquist, E.,
Feldmann, H. & Grondahl, K. (2002) Marginal
C
ehreli et al . Force transmission of one- and two-piece oral implants
bone reaction to oral implants: a prospective
comparative study of Astra Tech and Branemark
system implants. Clinical Oral Implants
Research 13: 3037.
Esposito, M., Hirsch, J.-M., Lekholm, U. &
Thompsen, P. (1998) Biological factors contribut-
ing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants (II)
Etiopathogenesis. European Journal of Oral
Sciences 106: 721764.
Hansson, S. (1999) The implant neck: smooth or
provided with retention elements. A biomechani-
cal approach. Clinical Oral Implants Research 10:
394405.
Heydenrijk, K., Raghoebar, G.M., Meijer, H.J.A.,
van der Reijden, W.A., van Winkelhoff, A.J. &
Stegenga, B. (2002) Two-stage IMZ implants and
ITI implants inserted in a single stage procedure.
A prospective comparative study. Clinical Oral
Implants Research 13: 371380.
Kasemo, B. & Lausma, J. (1988) Biomaterial and
implant surfaces: a surface science approach.
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial
Implants 3: 247259.
Kieswetter, K., Schwartz, Z., Dean, D.D. & Boyan,
B.D. (1996) The role of implant surface character-
istics in the healing of bone. Critical Reviews in
Oral Biology and Medicine 7: 329345.
Merz, B.R., Hunenbart, S. & Belser, U.C. (2000)
Mechanics of the implantabutment connection:
an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint
connection. International Journal of Oral and
Maxillofacial Implants 15: 519526.
Moberg, L.E., Kondell, P.A., Sagulin, G.B., Bolin,
A., Heimdahl, A. & Gynther, G.W. (2001)
Branemark system and ITI dental implant
system for treatment of mandibular edentulism.
A comparative randomized study: 3-year fol
low-up. Clinical Oral Implants Research 12:
450461.
Mollersten, L., Lockowandt, P. & Linden, L.-A.
(1997) Comparison of strength and failure mode of
seven implant systems: an in vitro test. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry 78: 582591.
Norton, M.R. (1997) An in vitro evaluation of the
strength of an internal conical interface compared
to a butt joint design. Clinical Oral Implants
Research 8: 290298.
Norton, M.R. (2000) In vitro evaluation of the
strength of the conical implant-to-abutment joint
in two commercially available implant systems.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 83: 567571.
Pilliar, R.M., Lee, J.M. & Maniatopoulos, C. (1986)
Observation of the effect of movement on the bone
ingrowth into porous surfaced implants. Clinical
Orthopaedics 208: 108113.
Sakaguchi, R.L. & Borgersen, S.E. (1995) Nonlinear
contact analysis of preload in dental implant
screws. International Journal of Oral and Max-
illofacial Implants 10: 295302.
Schwarz, M.S. (2000) Mechanical complications of
dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research
11: 156158.
Shigley, J.E., ed. (1986) Mechanical engineering
design, 194196. New York: McGraw Hill.
Simmons, C.A., Meguid, S.A. & Pilliar, R.M. (2001)
Differences in osseointegration rate due to implant
surface geometry can be explained by local tissue
strains. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 19:
187194.
van Steenberghe, D., De Mars, G., Quirynen, M.,
Jacobs, R. & Naert, I. (2000) A prospective split-
mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped
self-tapping pure titanium implant systems. Clin-
ical Oral Implants Research 11: 202209.
Szmukler-Moncler, S., Salama, H., Reingewirtz, Y.
& Dubruille, J.H. (1998) Timing of loading and
effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant
interface: review of experimental literature.
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 43:
192203.
Thomas, K.A. & Cook, S.D. (1985) An evaluation of
variables influencing implant fixation by direct
bone apposition. Journal of Biomedical Materials
Research 19: 875901.
Wennerberg, A., Albrektsson, T., Andersson, B. &
Krol, J.J. (1995) A histomorphometric and removal
torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants
with three different surface topographies. Clinical
Oral Implants Research 6: 2430.
Wiskott, H.W. & Belser, U.C. (1999) Lack of
integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a work-
ing hypothesis based on strains generated in
the surrounding bone. Clinical Oral Implants
Research 10: 429444.
489 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 15, 2004 / 481489