Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2025
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
Published on: July 15, 2009
Biomechanical behavior analysis of four types of short implants with different placement depths using the finite
Ruyi Li1, Zhanglin Wu2, Song Chen3
1Graduate student, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Prosthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
The clinical application of short implants has been increasing. However, studies on the marginal bone loss of short implants are sparse, and clinicians often choose short implants based on their own experience rather than on scientific information.
Purpose:
The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the microstrain-stress distribution in the peri-implant bone and implant components for 4 types of short implants at different placement depths of platform switching.
Material And Methods:
By using short implants as prototypes, 4 short implant models were 1:1 modeled. The diameter and length of the implants were 5×5, 5×6, 6×5, and 6×6 mm. The restoration was identical for all implants. Three different depths of implant platform switching were set: equicrestal, 0.5-mm subcrestal, and 1-mm subcrestal. The models were then assembled and assigned an occlusal force of 200 N (vertical or 30-degree oblique). A finite element analysis was carried out to evaluate the maximum equivalent elastic strain and von Mises stress in the bone and the stress distribution in the implant components.
Results:
The 5×5 implant group showed the largest intraosseous strain (21.921×103 με). A 1-mm increase in implant diameter resulted in a 17.1% to 37.4% reduction in maximum intraosseous strain when loaded with oblique forces. The strain in the bone tended to be much smaller than the placement depth at the equicrestal and 0.5-mm subcrestal positions than that at the 1-mm subcrestal position, especially under oblique force loading, with an increase of approximately 37.4% to 81.8%. In addition, when the cortical bone thickness was less than 4 mm, 5×6 implants caused significantly higher intraosseous stresses than 6×6 implants.
Conclusions:
Large implant diameters, rather than long implants, led to reduced intraosseous strain, especially under oblique loading. Regarding the implant platform switching depth, the short implant showed small intraosseous strains when the platform switching depth was equicrestal or 0.5-mm subcrestal.
