Comparison of Zygomatic Implants and Implantize Compact from Boneeasy: A Finite Element Analysis for Bending and Safety Factor
Luís M. M. Santos1, José L. T. Figueiredo2, Rui P. L. M. Coelho3, Sara D. G. Carvalho4 and Maria I. Martins5
1Private practice at Clinica Luís Mesquita Santos, Portugal
2Private practice at Lusíadas Hospital Oporto, Portugal
3Project Manager at Boneeasy research Center, Portugal
4Boneeasy research center
5FEUP, Oporto, Portugal
*Corresponding author: Rui P. L. M. Coelho, Project Manager at Boneeasy research Center, Portugal.
Citation: Santos LMM, Figueiredo JLT, Coelho RPLM, Carvalho SDG, Martins MI. Comparison of Zygomatic Implants and Implantize Compact from Boneeasy: A Finite Element Analysis for Bending and Safety Factor. J Oral Med and Dent Res. 5(3):1-9.
Received: July 22, 2024 | Published: August 02, 2024
Copyright© 2024 genesis pub by Santos LMM, et al. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License. This allows others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as they credit the authors for the original creation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52793/JOMDR.2024.5(3)-65
Abstract
The history of maxillofacial implants dates back to ancient civilizations where rudimentary attempts to replace missing facial structures were made using materials like ivory and wood. Significant advancements occurred in the 20th century with the development of biocompatible materials and modern surgical techniques. The introduction of titanium implants by Dr. Per-Ingvar Branemark in the 1960s revolutionized the field due to titanium's excellent osseointegration properties.
Zygomatic implants were developed as a specialized solution for patients with severe maxillary bone loss, where traditional dental implants are not feasible [1-9]. Today, maxillofacial implants are extensively used for trauma reconstruction, congenital defects, and post-oncological surgeries, continually evolving with advancements in material science and 3D printing technologies(c15). This study compares the performance of zygomatic implants and Implantize Compact from Boneeasy through Finite Element Analysis (FEA), focusing on bending and safety factors. The principle underlying this comparison is that for an implant to achieve osseointegration, the micro-vibration should be under 50 microns [1, 2, 10-14, 14-22]. Zygomatic implants were analyzed under various conditions, and their results were compared with those of the Implantize Compact system. Results showed that zygomatic implants exceed the micro-vibration threshold for osseointegration, while the Implantize Compact system remains within acceptable limits, suggesting its higher potential for successful osseointegration.
Keywords
Zygomatic Implants; Implantize Compact from Boneeasy; Maxillofacial implants; Osseointegration
Introduction
Zygomatic implants were pioneered by Dr. Per-Ingvar Brånemark in the late 1980s and early 1990s as an innovative solution for patients with severe maxillary bone loss, where conventional dental implants were not an option. These implants are anchored in the zygomatic bone, or cheekbone, which provides a dense and stable foundation for the prosthetics. The technique initially addressed the needs of cancer patients and those with significant maxillary atrophy. Over the decades, zygomatic implants have evolved with improved designs and surgical techniques, significantly enhancing their success rates and expanding their use in complex maxillofacial reconstructions [1, 2,15-17, 24-27].
Osseointegration is crucial for the success of zygomatic implants, as it ensures a stable and long-lasting foundation for prosthetic rehabilitation. This biological process involves the direct structural and functional connection between the living bone and the surface of the implant, typically made from biocompatible materials like titanium. Effective osseointegration minimizes the risk of implant failure, enhances load distribution, and improves the overall stability and functionality of the implant. For zygomatic implants, which are used in cases of severe maxillary bone loss, achieving robust osseointegration is essential to support the prosthetic structures and to facilitate optimal outcomes in complex maxillofacial reconstructions [17-27].
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a crucial computational tool in the field of implant dentistry, particularly for zygomatic implants. It simulates and assesses the mechanical behavior of implants and the surrounding bone, predicting stress distribution and identifying potential failure points at the bone-implant interface. This information is vital for understanding and optimizing osseointegration, the process where the bone forms a direct structural and functional connection with the implant. Optimal stress distribution, revealed through FEA, promotes a favorable biological response, enhancing bone growth and implant stability. By allowing for the refinement of implant designs and surgical techniques, FEA helps ensure robust osseointegration, which is essential for the long-term success and load-bearing capacity of zygomatic implants.
This study aims to compare zygomatic implants and the Implantize Compact system from Boneeasy using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to determine their potential for osseointegration. According to Brånemark et al. (2001), for successful osseointegration, micro-vibrations should be under 50 microns, highlighting the critical role of mechanical stability in implant success. The study evaluates the minimum safety factor and total displacement of both implant systems to assess their performance under varying loading conditions, aiming to optimize design and surgical techniques for enhanced bone integration and long-term implant durability. By leveraging FEA, this research contributes to advancing implant dentistry by providing insights into stress distribution and biomechanical interactions critical for achieving robust osseointegration in complex maxillofacial reconstructions.
Material and Method
The study involved testing implants of varying lengths (30, 40, 50, and 57.5 mm) at different angulations (30, 40, and 50 degrees) to the occlusal plane. Zygomatic implants engaged the zygomatic bone at an average depth of 7 mm (Figure1,2).
Figure 1: The 7mm constriction of the Zygomatic implant.
Figure 2: Applied force of 200 Nw at 50º.
Implantize Compact system involved a complex configuration with multiple screws for enhanced fixation. An occlusal force of 200 Nw, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, was applied, and FEA was performed using Autodesk Fusion 360 (Figure 3,4).
Figure 3: Constrictions for the Implantize Compact.
Figure 4: Applied force of 200 Nw.
Results
Zygomatic Implants