Introduction

Deficiency in the alveolar ridge may occur from tooth loss, trauma, pathology, or congenital defects. This deficiency can compromise ideal implant placement and long-term treatment outcomes.1  The ridge deficiency can occur horizontally, vertically, or in combination.2  Hence, different therapeutic strategies have been developed to regenerate alveolar bone defects, including guided bone regeneration (GBR), block graft, ridge splitting, or distraction osteogenesis.38  GBR is a method that provides clinicians with an adequate amount of bone for implant site development and has been used with success in dental practice.9  However, reconstruction of vertical defects may be more challenging than reconstruction of horizontal defects.1013  A major challenge in vertical regeneration is the eventual collapse of space resulting from excessive masticatory forces over the membrane and graft materials.14 

To overcome some shortcomings of GBR for reconstruction of vertical bony defects, the use of a tent pole or tenting screws has been proposed. The rationale of the “tent-pole” grafting technique is that using screws will help prevent collapse of the graft no further than the level of the screw heads.15  In the tent-pole grafting technique, the membrane and supporting screws are the main components supporting the reconstructed area to prevent collapse of graft materials. Stability of the membrane and tent pole screws are important factors in ensuring safe dissipation of masticatory forces over the grafted area.16,17 

Non-resorbable barrier membranes have been used to maintain the space for alveolar ridge augmentation in multiple clinical studies.1820  Previously, studies reported the use of an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane on vertical augmentation.16,19  However, a high incidence of infection after membrane exposure has seen its use fall out of favor.21  Dense-PTFE (d-PTFE) membrane has been used to achieve optimal bone width and height in GBR procedures, carrying less risk of infection after membrane exposure compared with e-PTFE.12,20,2224  In addition, d-PTFE membranes are biocompatible, sufficiently occlusive, clinically manageable, and have superior mechanical stability and stiffness compared with resorbable membranes.24  Recently, Urban et al18  reported a prospective series of patients with advanced vertical defects who were treated with the tent-pole screws technique in addition to d-PTFE membranes. This approach was shown to be effective at achieving a significant amount of bone height.18 

Masticatory forces result in oblique and vertical loads, inducing pressure on and bending screws, making make them more susceptible to fracture or failure to maintain the space.25,26  Nevertheless, there are ethical issues to performing in vivo studies to identify the forces exerted on tenting screws used for vertical bone augmentation.27  To date, however, there have been no clinical or experimental studies investigating the effect of occlusal forces on tenting screws, membrane, and the surrounding bone. An alternative to performing in vivo studies to predict biomechanical performance of dental structures and biomaterial designs in dentistry is a virtual test known as the “finite element analysis” (FEA) means of predicting.27  FEA has previously been used to investigate the stress distribution around implants and surrounding bone.28 

The purpose of this study was to analyze stresses induced in tenting screws by occlusal forces in a vertically augmented ridge through use of 3-dimensional FEA.

Methods

Finite element model

The geometry and associated mesh of the posterior mandibular bone with vertical defect was reconstructed with 3-dimensional FEA code (ANSYS Workbench 11.0; ANSYS Inc, Canonsburg, Penn) and engineering design software (SolidWorks Professional 2013; SolidWorks Corp, Concord, Mass) to develop a digital study model. The reconstructed model consisted of two tenting screws placed and stabilized in the mandibular bone, then covered by d-PTFE membrane (Osteogenics Biomedical, Lubbock, Tex) for vertical ridge augmentation. A linear screw configuration was used that included two screws above the alveolar ridge in a straight line, a configuration applied earlier by several authors.15,19,29  Figure 1 shows the screw configuration as well as the mandibular bone digital study model when axial forces were applied. The tenting screw (Osteogenics Biomedical) used in this study was a 9mm self-drilling screw made of polished neck (5mm) for supporting membrane and space maintenance, and threaded portion (4mm) for stabilizing the screw into the bone. The width of the tenting screws was 1.5mm with broad 3.0mm head. Two tenting screws were buried in a simulated posterior mandibular bone model that included a cancellous core surrounded by a thick cortical layer (1mm thickness). The tenting screws were rigidly anchored in the bone model along the entire interface.The overall dimensions of this model were 10mm in buccolingual width, 17mm in mesiodistal length, and 15mm in height.

Figures 1–6

Figure 1. Finite element analysis (FEA) model of bone and tenting screws covered with membrane when axial forces were applied. Figure 2. Von Misses stress results in bone when vertical loading was applied. Figure 3. Von Misses stress in the tenting screw when vertical loading was applied. Figure 4. FEA model of bone and tenting screws covered with membrane when off-axial forces were applied. Figure 5. Von Misses stress results in bone when off-axial loading (45 degree) was applied. Figure 6. Von Misses stress in the tenting screw when off-axial loading (45 degree) was applied.

Figures 1–6

Figure 1. Finite element analysis (FEA) model of bone and tenting screws covered with membrane when axial forces were applied. Figure 2. Von Misses stress results in bone when vertical loading was applied. Figure 3. Von Misses stress in the tenting screw when vertical loading was applied. Figure 4. FEA model of bone and tenting screws covered with membrane when off-axial forces were applied. Figure 5. Von Misses stress results in bone when off-axial loading (45 degree) was applied. Figure 6. Von Misses stress in the tenting screw when off-axial loading (45 degree) was applied.

The mechanical properties of the simulated model were considered to be isotropic, homogenous, and linearly elastic.30  It was assumed that tenting screws engaged completely with the bone and were subjected to shear stress. Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of all simulated structures were given by the manufacturer (Table 1). In total, the 3-dimensional simulated model consisted of 91 093 nodes and 60 985 elements. Schneider et al31  showed that the maximum stress the elastic properties of a fresh human mandible can tolerate is 85 MPa. Selecting adequate boundary conditions prevents any torsion of the mandibular bone. Tensile stresses in the bone and screws were then evaluated applying 3-dimensional FEA.

Table 1

Mechanical properties of the materials modeled*

Mechanical properties of the materials modeled*
Mechanical properties of the materials modeled*

Loading protocols

Since the pattern of stress distribution was significantly affected by location and size of force induction, the masticatory force in the lower first molar area was simulated. An axial occlusal forces of 100 N and an off-axial of 30 N (45 degrees of inclination in relation to the long axis of the tenting screws) was applied to simulate the mean value of the posterior bite force in humans.32,33 

Data analysis

The strength estimation of the 3-dimensional screw system was calculated using von Mises and Henckey's “change of shape” energy hypothesis.3436  All the data needed to contour patterns and develop stress values in and around tenting screws and a 3-dimensional model of the mandible were meshed and analyzed by ANSYS Workbench 11.0 (ANSYS). Von Mises stresses were used to present the stress values. A stress map was gecnerated that showed stress distribution on the bone and screws. If the maximum tensile stress for either the tenting pole screws or the bone is exceeded, the structure may fail. The results of the FEAs do not have a variance; therefore, there was no need to perform statistical analyses.

Results

The von Mises stress pattern on tenting screws and the surrounding bone with a masticatory force of 100 N in vertical and 25 N in oblique directions was evaluated by FEA (Figures 1 through 6).

When vertical force was applied, the maximum von Mises stress on the surrounding bone was located coronally (Figures 1 and 2). A magnification of the tensile stress distribution after application of the vertical load on tenting pole screws is shown in Figure 3. The maximum and minimum stresses are located at the top and end of the screws, respectively.

Application of the oblique occlusal load resulted in high stress values at the coronal and middle portions of the bone and screws, respectively, as illustrated in Figures 4 through 6.

Table 2 summarizes the maximum stress values in screws and the surrounding bone when axial and off-axial loading forces were applied. Distribution of stress in both tenting screws was comparable, as was the pattern of stress distribution on the bone surrounding the two screws. Furthermore, stresses as a result of axial and off-axial forces did not cause mechanical instability.

Table 2

Maximum stress values in screws and the surrounding bone when axial and off-axial occlusal loads were applied

Maximum stress values in screws and the surrounding bone when axial and off-axial occlusal loads were applied
Maximum stress values in screws and the surrounding bone when axial and off-axial occlusal loads were applied

Discussion

Space maintenance is the main parameter of successful bone regeneration over the residual bone defect. It is noteworthy that complete reconstruction of vertical bone defects may not feasible using barrier membranes in all cases and may result in membrane collapse at some locations. These collapsed points are known as “leaky spots” and may be the result of the membrane folding due to lack of adaptation to a 3-dimensional structure or insufficient support and stability against masticatory forces.16,19  Application of tenting screws allows for effective space maintenance by creating a support for the barrier membrane against external forces, thereby helping the membrane hold its volume and shape during the healing period.37  Tenting screws have been used successfully for bone augmentation with a low risk of complications.19,38  However, successful bone regeneration may be compromised by mechanical instability of the tenting screws.39  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that assesses the stability of tenting screws against external forces as well as illustrating the pattern of stress distribution on the surrounding bone. Based on the findings from this study, different stress patterns resulting from the application of axial and off-axial forces do not cause mechanical instability in tenting screws.

Tenting screws have been used successfully to vertically augment the alveolar ridge by 3–5mm by supporting and maintaining the geometry of the membrane.18,19,38,40,41  Several studies have demonstrated that after use of tenting screws, the bone height appeared stable and the particulate bone graft was not resorbed farther than the level of the screw heads.15,19  The size of the vertical defects may affect the success of the procedure, and it has been suggested that vertically augmenting less than 5–6mm may reduce the risk of complications.15 

The size of the tenting screws used for vertical augmentation is also critical in the evaluation of their mechanical stability when occlusal forces are applied during the healing period. The size of the tenting screws employed in this present investigation is comparable to those used in the previous studies.18,19,38,40,41  Moreover, it has been suggested that at least 3mm of vertical bone height is needed to achieve tenting screw primary stability.37  Based on the results of the current study, primary stability of the screws was obtained by placing the screws 4mm inside the bone.

Non-resorbable barrier membranes have been used in multiple clinical studies to maintain the space for alveolar ridge augmentation.1820  Since e-PTFE membrane has been removed from the market, the d-PTFE membrane has become a more commonly used biomaterial for GBR procedures.42,43  However, a recent systematic review suggested that further research is needed to evaluate the success of vertical ridge augmentation using d-PTFE membranes.44  The use of non-resorbable barrier has not been evaluated using FEA in any previous studies.

Biomechanical characteristics of bone grafting procedures can also be explored by FEA.45  Finite element analysis is a mathematical method designed to simulate and evaluate different shapes, including bone and tenting screws used in this study, as well as the mechanical properties of these structures. A strong correlation between the amount of force applied and the stress distribution on implants and the surrounding bone has been reported using FEA.46,47  The experimental model in this study evaluated axial and off-axial loading forces over a simulated vertical ridge defect that was augmented by tenting screws and a d-PTFE membrane. As illustrated in the present study, the point of load transfer significantly affects the amount and pattern of stress on screws and the surrounding bone. In comparison with axial loading, off-axial loading forces caused more stress at the coronal portion of the bone-to-screw interface, and the pattern of stress shifted from the coronal to the middle portion of the screws. Axial loading induced higher von Mises stress values at the screws (146.08 MPa) than did oblique loading (34.36 MPa) and similar stress values within the bone with axial loading (25.1 MPa) and off-axial (24.68 MPa). The masticatory force used in the present study—100 N for axial and 25 N for off-axial—is within the range of masticatory force generated in the molar region (75 to 300 N).42,45  The results of the present study reveal that the largest amount of stress to bone when vertical and oblique forces are applied occurs in the cortical bone adjacent to the coronal part of the bone-to-screw interface, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies.4850  In addition, the von Mises stress pattern showed an uneven stress distribution in the bone.

It is important to note that the model in the present study was homogenous, isotropic, and linearly elastic, which are conditions that do not necessarily exist in clinical practice.29  For that reason, the mechanical trends and the trends of changes in the stress observed in the study should be considered rather than the absolute values. In addition, the materials used and physical characteristics of each layer of the model affect the stress distribution patterns.

To perform the FEA, the clinical condition for vertical bone augmentation was simplified. Note that certain differences are present in the strength and quality of the bone, as well as the strength of the bone graft, tenting screw, and barrier membrane. However, the mechanical properties of different types of these bone grafts, tenting screws, and barrier membranes have not been well established. Further, different locations, angulation and size of forces, temperature, type of diet, opposing dentition, and use of fixture screws to stabilize the barrier membrane are also clinical factors that can affect stress generated around the tenting screws and barrier membrane during vertical bone augmentation. Thus, inherent limitations in this study should be considered. By considering the limitations of FEA, the clinician will be better equipped to interpret the outcomes and extrapolate these findings to clinical practice.

Conclusion

Within the limits of this study, all tenting screws tested were sufficiently stable to maintain membrane volume against vertical and oblique forces. Further animal and clinical studies are necessary to confirm that tenting screws can support forces as depicted by the models used in the present study.

Abbreviations

    Abbreviations
     
  • d-PTFE

    dense polytetrafluoroethylene

  •  
  • e-PTFE

    expanded polytetrafluoroethylene

  •  
  • FEA

    finite element analysis

  •  
  • PTFE

    polytetrafluoroethylene

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Professor Yu Zhang, Department of Biomaterials & Biomimetics, for his advice during the study, and Kira Nightingale, MS, CCRC, Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, for her help with the revision of the English text of the manuscript.

Note

The authors claim no financial interest, either directly or indirectly, in the products or information listed in this paper. There was no external source of funding for the present study.

References

1
Aghaloo
TL,
Moy
PK.
Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2006
;
22
(
suppl
):
49
70
.
2
Chiapasco
M,
Zaniboni
M,
Boisco
M.
Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
(
suppl 2
):
136
159
.
3
Misch
CM.
Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1996
;
12
:
767
776
.
4
Keller
EE,
Tolman
DE,
Eckert
S.
Surgical-prosthodontic reconstruction of advanced maxillary bone compromise with autogenous onlay block bone grafts and osseointegrated endosseous implants: a 12-year study of 32 consecutive patients
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1998
;
14
:
197
209
.
5
Buser
D,
Dula
K,
Belser
U,
Hirt
H,
Berthold
H.
Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. Surgical procedure in the mandible
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1995
;
15
:
10
29
.
6
Buser
D,
Dula
K,
Hess
D,
Hirt
HP,
Belser
UC.
Localized ridge augmentation with autografts and barrier membranes
.
Periodontol 2000
.
1999
;
19
:
151
163
.
7
Jensen
OT,
Cockrell
R,
Kuhike
L,
Reed
C.
Anterior maxillary alveolar distraction osteogenesis: a prospective 5-year clinical study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2001
;
17
:
52
68
.
8
Louis
PJ,
Gutta
R,
Said-Al-Naief
N,
Bartolucci
AA.
Reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible with particulate bone graft and titanium mesh for implant placement
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2008
;
66
:
235
245
.
9
Hämmerle
CH,
Karring
T.
Guided bone regeneration at oral implant sites
.
Periodontol 2000
.
1998
;
17
:
151
175
.
10
McAllister
BS,
Haghighat
K.
Bone augmentation techniques
.
J Periodontol
.
2007
;
78
:
377
396
.
11
Buser
D,
Dula
K,
Hirt
HP,
Schenk
RK.
Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: a clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
1996
;
54
:
420
432
.
12
Dahlin
C,
Lekholm
U,
Becker
W,
et al.
Treatment of fenestration and dehiscence bone defects around oral implants using the guided tissue regeneration technique: a prospective multicenter study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1994
;
10
:
312
318
.
13
Tolman
DE.
Reconstructive procedures with endosseous implants in grafted bone: a review of the literature
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1994
;
10
:
275
294
.
14
Rangert
B,
Gunne
J,
Glantz
PO,
Svensson
A.
Vertical load distribution on a three-unit prosthesis supported by a natural tooth and a single Brånemark implant. An in vivo study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1995
;
6
:
40
46
.
15
Le
B,
Rohrer
MD,
Prassad
HS.
Screw “tent-pole” grafting technique for reconstruction of large vertical alveolar ridge defects using human mineralized allograft for implant site preparation
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2010
;
68
:
428
435
.
16
Simion
M,
Jovanovic
SA,
Trisi
P,
Scarano
A,
Piattelli
A.
Vertical ridge augmentation around dental implants using a membrane technique and autogenous bone or allografts in humans
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1998
;
18
:
8
23
.
17
Benic
GI,
Hämmerle
CH.
Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration
.
Periodontol 2000
.
2014
;
66
:
13
40
.
18
Urban
IA,
Lozada
JL,
Jovanovic
SA,
Nagursky
H,
Nagy
K.
Vertical ridge augmentation with titanium-reinforced, dense-PTFE membranes and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 19 patients
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2013
;
29
:
185
193
.
19
Doblin
JM,
Salkin
LM,
Mellado
JR,
Freedman
AL,
Stein
MD.
A histologic evaluation of localized ridge augmentation utilizing DFDBA in combination with e-PTFE membranes and stainless steel bone pins in humans
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1996
;
16
:
120
129
.
20
Simion
M,
Trisi
P,
Piattelli
A.
Vertical ridge augmentation using a membrane technique associated with osseointegrated implants
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1994
;
14
:
496
511
.
21
Verardi
S,
Simion
M.
Management of the exposure of e-PTFE membranes in guided bone regeneration
.
Pract Proced Aesthet Dent
.
2007
;
19
:
111
117
.
22
Fugazzotto
PA.
Success and failure rates of osseointegrated implants in function in regenerated bone for 6 to 51 months: a preliminary report
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1996
;
12
:
17
24
.
23
Zitzmann
NU,
Naef
R,
Schärer
P.
Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1996
;
12
:
844
852
.
24
Bartee
BK,
Carr
J.
Evaluation of a high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (n-PTFE) membrane as a barrier material to facilitate guided bone regeneration in the rat mandible
.
J Oral Implantol
.
1995
;
21
:
88
95
.
25
Rangert
B,
Krogh
PH,
Langer
B,
Van Roekel
N.
Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1995
;
10
:
326
334
.
26
Simon
BI,
Chiang
TF,
Drew
HJ.
Alternative to the gold standard for alveolar ridge augmentation: tenting screw technology
.
Quintessence Int
.
2010
;
41
:
379
386
.
27
Geng
J-P,
Tan
KB,
Liu
G-R.
Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2001
;
85
:
585
598
.
28
Himmlova
L,
Dostálová Tj, Kácovský A, Konvic̆ková S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2004
;
91
:
20
25
.
29
Simion
M,
Jovanovic
SA,
Tinti
C,
Benfenati
SP.
Long-term evaluation of osseointegrated implants inserted at the time or after vertical ridge augmentation
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2001
;
12
:
35
45
.
30
Maurer
P,
Holweg
S,
Schubert
J.
Finite-element-analysis of different screw-diameters in the sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible
.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
.
1999
;
27
:
365
372
.
31
Schneider
D.
Comparative materials testing of human bone and Kallocryl Cf [in German]
.
Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl
.
1988
;
76
:
607
608
.
32
Eskitascioglu
G,
Usumez
A,
Sevimay
M,
Soykan
E,
Unsal
E.
The influence of occlusal loading location on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: a three-dimensional finite element study
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2004
;
91
:
144
150
.
33
Ismail
Y,
Pahountis
L,
Fleming
J.
Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element analysis of a blade implant
.
Int J Oral Implantol
.
1986
;
4
:
25
31
.
34
VonMises
R.
Mechanik des festen Körpers im plastischen deformablen Zustand. Nachrichten der Kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Göttingen [in German]
.
Math-phys Klasse
.
1913
:
582
592
.
35
Geesink
RG,
Hoefnagels
NH,
Bulstra
SK.
Osteogenic activity of OP-1 bone morphogenetic protein (BMP-7) in a human fibular defect
.
J Bone Joint Surg Br
.
1999
;
81
:
710
718
.
36
Hencky
H.
Theory of plastic deformation and thereby caused stress in the material [in German]
.
Z Ang Math Mech
.
4
:
323
334
.
37
Chasioti
E,
Chiang
TF,
Drew
HJ.
Maintaining space in localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration with tenting screw technology
.
Quintessence Int. (Berlin)
.
2012
;
44
:
763
771
.
38
Becker
W,
Becker
BE,
McGuire
MK.
Localized ridge augmentation using absorbable pins and e-PTFE barrier membranes: a new surgical technique
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1994
;
14
:
48
61
.
39
Lekovic
V,
Camargo
PM,
Klokkevold
PR,
et al.
Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable membranes
.
J Periodontol
.
1998
;
69
:
1044
1049
.
40
Buser
D,
Dula
K,
Belser
U,
Hirt
H-P,
Berthold
H.
Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. 1. Surgical procedure in the maxilla
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1992
;
13
:
29
45
.
41
Tinti
C,
Parma-Benfenati
S,
Polizzi
G.
Vertical ridge augmentation: what is the limit?
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1996
;
16
:
220
229
.
42
Rakhmatia
YD,
Ayukawa
Y,
Furuhashi
A,
Koyano
K.
Current barrier membranes: titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental applications
.
J Prosthodont Res
.
2013
;
57
:
3
14
.
43
Bartee
BK.
The use of high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane to treat osseous defects: clinical reports
.
Implant Dent
.
1995
;
4
:
21
31
.
44
Carbonell
J,
Martín
IS,
Santos
A,
Pujol
A,
Sanz-Moliner
J,
Nart
J.
High-density polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in guided bone and tissue regeneration procedures: a literature review
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2014
;
43
:
75
84
.
45
Kaku
N,
Hara
K,
Tabata
T,
Tsumura
H.
Influence of the volume of bone defect, bone grafting methods, and hook fixation on stress on the Kerboull-type plate and screw in total hip arthroplasty: three-dimensional finite element analysis
.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
.
2015
;
25
:
321
329
.
46
Kim
S,
Choi
H,
Woo
D,
et al.
A three-dimensional finite element analysis of short dental implants in the posterior maxilla
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2013
;
29
:
e155
164
.
47
Baggi
L,
Cappelloni
I,
Di Girolamo
M,
Maceri
F,
Vairo
G.
The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2008
;
100
:
422
431
.
48
Rieger
MR,
Mayberry
M,
Brose
MO.
Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1990
;
63
:
671
676
.
49
Anitua
E,
Tapia
R,
Luzuriaga
F,
Orive
G.
Influence of implant length, diameter, and geometry on stress distribution: a finite element analysis
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2010
;
30
:
89
95
.
50
Clelland
NL,
Ismail
YH,
Zaki
HS,
Pipko
D.
Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis in and around the Screw-Vent implant
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1991
;
6
:
391
398
.