↓ Skip to main content

FEA model analysis of the effects of the stress distribution of saddle-type implants on the alveolar bone and the structural/physical stability of implants

Overview of attention for article published in Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
FEA model analysis of the effects of the stress distribution of saddle-type implants on the alveolar bone and the structural/physical stability of implants
Published in
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40902-016-0054-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoon Soo Kong, Jun Woo Park, Dong Ju Choi

Abstract

As dental implants receive masticatory stress, the distribution of stress is very important to peri-implant bone homeostasis and implant survival. In this report, we created a saddle-type implant and analyzed its stability and ability to distribute stress to the surrounding bone. The implants were designed as a saddle-type implant (SI) that wrapped around the alveolar bone, and the sizes of the saddles were 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 mm. The X and Y displacement were compared to clarify the effects of the saddle structures. The control group consisted of dental implants without the saddle design (CI). Using finite element modeling (FEM), the stress distribution around the dental implants was analyzed. With saddle-type implants, saddles longer than 4.5 mm were more effective for stress distribution than CI. Regarding lateral displacement, a SI of 2.5 mm was effective for stress distribution compared to lateral displacement. ASI that was 5.6 mm in length was more effective for stress distribution than a CI that was 10 mm in length. The saddle-type implant could have a bone-gaining effect. Because it has stress-distributing effects, it might protect the newly formed bone under the implant.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Engineering 2 14%
Computer Science 1 7%
Materials Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#55
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,902
of 312,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.