The Experts below are selected from a list of 171 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gao Chengzhi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
biomechanical properties of the complete mandibular Subperiosteal Implant under different bite loads
Journal of Medical Biomechanics, 2012Co-Authors: Gao ChengzhiAbstract:Objective To investigate biomechanical properties of the complete mandibular Subperiosteal Implant under four different bite loads,and provide some references for the personalized Implant design in clinical cases.Methods Based on the three-dimensional model of human mandible,two kinds of matching complete mandibular Subperiosteal Implants,meshy base(Implant 1) and zonary base(Implant 2),were established,respectively.Stress distributions of both the two Implants under four different bite loads were calculated and compared.Results The maximum stress of Implant 1 was 230.42 MPa under the load Ⅳ and that of Implant 2 was 311.11 MPa under the load Ⅰ.The stress distributions and maximum stress showed that the Implant with meshy base had better resistance to the vertical loads,while the Implant with zonary base had better resistance to the horizontal loads.Conclusions Rational arrangement for the number of posts and the distance between posts can effectively control the stress of Implants.Posts should be placed in a vertical direction with the alveolar bone to avoid amplifying the horizontal component.In addition,posts should be well bounded to the bases,so that the stress on the bottom of posts won't be at a high level.The complete denture should be guaranteed to contact at several spots during centric,protrusive and lateral bites to keep occlusion balance and decrease the maximum tensile stress on the contact surface.
Liu Hongche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
construction of the three dimensional finite element model of defective edentulous cranial maxillary complex rehabilitated by palatal Subperiosteal Implant supported prosthesis
Chinese Journal of Prosthodontics, 2008Co-Authors: Liu HongcheAbstract:Objective:To construct a three-dimensional finite element model of defective edentulous cranial-maxillary complex rehabilitated by palatal-Subperiosteal-Implant-supported prosthesis.Methods:A primary 3D model of cranial-maxillary complex was created with Mimics software based on CT scanning data,which was then fitted into Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines surface with Geomagic software,the model of subperiolsteal Implant was designed and constituted using Pro-E software based on model above.All the parts were modified and integrated into the definitive model with Ansys softare.Results:A three-dimensional finite element model of defective edentulous cranial-maxillary complex with prosthesis supported by palatal Subperiosteal Implant,having tetrahedron 225,073 units and 76,682 nodes,was established.Conclusion:The three-dimensional finite element model representing a complicated actual system can be constructed satisfactorily with combinational use of the software above.
Robert Digregorio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an in vitro comparison of the computerized tomography cad cam and direct bone impression techniques for Subperiosteal Implant model generation
Journal of Oral Implantology, 1998Co-Authors: Norman A Cranin, M Klein, John Andrews, Robert DigregorioAbstract:Abstract Subperiosteal Implants are currently fabricated by using the classic two-stage direct bone impression technique or by the use of the one-stage computer tomography/computer-assisted designcomputer-assisted manufacture (CT/ CAD-CAM) method. This study compares the accuracy of the two techniques by using cadaver maxillae and mandibles as the models for fabrication of casts. Seven cadaver jaw specimens were collected and subjected to direct bone impressions and to CT scans. Those derived from the direct bone impressions were poured in die stone, while the CT scans were sent for fabrication of CAD-CAMgenerated casts. On each of the 14 models so produced, a cast grid was fabricated that was designed as a measuring device. The preciseness of fit of each grid was subjected to analyses that presented levels of accuracy. Statistical evaluation of these levels, reduced to numerical indices, revealed that the direct bone techniques resulted in acceptable castings in seven of seven cases, whereas the CAD-CA...
-
An IN VITRO Comparison of the Computerized Tomography/CAD-CAM and Direct Bone Impression Techniques for Subperiosteal Implant Model Generation
Journal of Oral Implantology, 1998Co-Authors: A. Norman Cranin, John Andrews, Klein M, Robert DigregorioAbstract:Abstract Subperiosteal Implants are currently fabricated by using the classic two-stage direct bone impression technique or by the use of the one-stage computer tomography/computer-assisted designcomputer-assisted manufacture (CT/ CAD-CAM) method. This study compares the accuracy of the two techniques by using cadaver maxillae and mandibles as the models for fabrication of casts. Seven cadaver jaw specimens were collected and subjected to direct bone impressions and to CT scans. Those derived from the direct bone impressions were poured in die stone, while the CT scans were sent for fabrication of CAD-CAMgenerated casts. On each of the 14 models so produced, a cast grid was fabricated that was designed as a measuring device. The preciseness of fit of each grid was subjected to analyses that presented levels of accuracy. Statistical evaluation of these levels, reduced to numerical indices, revealed that the direct bone techniques resulted in acceptable castings in seven of seven cases, whereas the CAD-CA...
A. S. Alymbaev - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stress strain state of the alveolar crest under the primary strut of a Subperiosteal Implant
International Applied Mechanics, 2012Co-Authors: A. N. Chuiko, I. A. Shinchukovskii, A. V. Oleinik, V. A. Kutsenko, A. S. AlymbaevAbstract:The stress–strain state in the alveolar bone crest is analyzed over a wide range of stiffness ratios between the bone and the primary strut of the Subperiosteal Implant. Recommendations on the rational design of Subperiosteal Implants are given
-
Stress–strain state of the alveolar crest under the primary strut of a Subperiosteal Implant
International Applied Mechanics, 2012Co-Authors: A. N. Chuiko, I. A. Shinchukovskii, A. V. Oleinik, V. A. Kutsenko, A. S. AlymbaevAbstract:The stress–strain state in the alveolar bone crest is analyzed over a wide range of stiffness ratios between the bone and the primary strut of the Subperiosteal Implant. Recommendations on the rational design of Subperiosteal Implants are given
Bent Fibaek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a 41 year history of a mandibular Subperiosteal Implant
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2000Co-Authors: Soren Schou, Lars Pallesen, Erik Hjortinghansen, Carsten S Pedersen, Bent FibaekAbstract:The Subperiosteal Implant was originally described in the 1940s. The inadequate long-term results of Subperiosteal Implants are in contrast to the excellent results documented for endosseous osseointegrated oral Implants. Consequently, Subperiosteal Implants and other soft-tissue-anchored Implants should not be used presently. Furthermore, these Implants are seldom seen today, because they generally were removed rather shortly after placement. The present report documents a full 41-year history of a mandibular Subperiosteal Implant inserted in 1957 by focusing upon the consequences of not removing an Implant in spite of continuous periods of complications during 4 decades. Implant exposure, inflammation, infection, and fistula formation occurred persistently. Total Implant removal was refused by the patient in 1973. After 25 years without control, tremendous resorption of the mandible was observed in 1998. Consequently, the entire Implant was then removed. Placement of osseointegrated oral Implants was impossible without extensive autogenous bone grafting. The present report has demonstrated that regular control of patients with Subperiosteal Implants is mandatory. Furthermore, Subperiosteal Implants should definitely be removed, if continuous periods of complications occur.
-
A 41‐year history of a mandibular Subperiosteal Implant
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2000Co-Authors: Soren Schou, Lars Pallesen, Carsten S Pedersen, Erik Hjørting-hansen, Bent FibaekAbstract:The Subperiosteal Implant was originally described in the 1940s. The inadequate long-term results of Subperiosteal Implants are in contrast to the excellent results documented for endosseous osseointegrated oral Implants. Consequently, Subperiosteal Implants and other soft-tissue-anchored Implants should not be used presently. Furthermore, these Implants are seldom seen today, because they generally were removed rather shortly after placement. The present report documents a full 41-year history of a mandibular Subperiosteal Implant inserted in 1957 by focusing upon the consequences of not removing an Implant in spite of continuous periods of complications during 4 decades. Implant exposure, inflammation, infection, and fistula formation occurred persistently. Total Implant removal was refused by the patient in 1973. After 25 years without control, tremendous resorption of the mandible was observed in 1998. Consequently, the entire Implant was then removed. Placement of osseointegrated oral Implants was impossible without extensive autogenous bone grafting. The present report has demonstrated that regular control of patients with Subperiosteal Implants is mandatory. Furthermore, Subperiosteal Implants should definitely be removed, if continuous periods of complications occur.
