The effects of hydroxyapatite coatings on stress distribution near the dental implant–bone interface

The effects of different thickness of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings on bone stress distribution near the dental implant–bone interface are very important factors for the HA-coated dental implant design and clinical application. By means of finite element analysis (FEA), the bone stress distributions...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied surface science Vol. 255; no. 2; pp. 273 - 275
Main Authors: Jiang, W., Wang, W.D., Shi, X.H., Chen, H.Z., Zou, W., Guo, Z., Luo, J.M., Gu, Z.W., Zhang, X.D.
Format: Journal Article Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 15-11-2008
Elsevier
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The effects of different thickness of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings on bone stress distribution near the dental implant–bone interface are very important factors for the HA-coated dental implant design and clinical application. By means of finite element analysis (FEA), the bone stress distributions near the dental implant coated with different thicknesses from 0 to 200 μm were calculated and analyzed under the 200 N chewing load. In all cases, the maximal von Mises stresses in the bone are at the positions near the neck of dental implant on the lingual side, and decrease with the increase of the HA coatings thickness. The HA coatings weaken the stress concentration and improve the biomechanical property in the bone, however, in HA coatings thickness range of 60–120 μm, the distinctions of that benefit are not obvious. In addition, considering the technical reason of HA coatings, we conclude that thickness of HA coatings range from 60 to 120 μm would be the better choice for clinical application.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0169-4332
1873-5584
DOI:10.1016/j.apsusc.2008.06.165