Applied Surface Science 255 (2008) 273275

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Surface Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apsusc

The effects of hydroxyapatite coatings on stress distribution near the dental implantbone interface
W. Jiang a, W.D. Wang b, X.H. Shi a, H.Z. Chen a, W. Zou b, Z. Guo b, J.M. Luo a,*, Z.W. Gu a, X.D. Zhang a
a b

Engineering Research Center for Biomaterials, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610064, China Center for Certication of Drug, State Food and Drug Administration, Beijing 100061, China

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Available online 3 July 2008 PACS: 68.35.Gy 46.70.Lk Keywords: Hydroxyapatite coatings Dental implant Stress distribution Finite element analysis

The effects of different thickness of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings on bone stress distribution near the dental implantbone interface are very important factors for the HA-coated dental implant design and clinical application. By means of nite element analysis (FEA), the bone stress distributions near the dental implant coated with different thicknesses from 0 to 200 mm 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 60120 mm, the distinctions of that benet are not obvious. In addition, considering the technical reason of HA coatings, we conclude that thickness of HA coatings range from 60 to 120 mm would be the better choice for clinical application. 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings on dental implant are widely used in orthopedic applications, which can provide excellent biocompatibility and bioactivity for skeletal and dental implant. So far, few of detailed studies are reported on the mechanical effects of HA coatings at the implantbone interface [1,2], because of the technical difculties in experiments especially in vivo. And most of them simplied the alveolar bone models and the loading relationship, which could get useful results in trend aspect of the effects of coatings, but the distance between results and real conditions still exists [2,3]. In this work, the model of screwed implant with HA coatings, which was implanted in mandibular second premolar, was reconstructed based on the CT scan data. The biomechanical behaviors of bone and dental implant coated with different thickness were analyzed by the way of FEA. The results would be profound to the design and clinical application of HA-coated dental implant.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Models reconstruct Fig. 1 shows the typical section images of CT data at mandibular second premolar, which were collected from a 25 year old female volunteer, and the three dimensional model of alveolar bone was reconstructed from the CT data. The medical assembly model shown in Fig. 2 was consisted of three parts: part A is alveolar bone, part B is dental implant with HA coatings and part C is abutment. Referred to the clinical experience, the material of dental implant with screw on surface was chosen as a titanic alloy Ti6Al4V. The length of the implant was 13.0 mm and the implanted part was 11.5 mm, the diameter of that was 4.0 mm. The pitch and the depth of screw was 0.7 and 0.3 mm separately, and the vertex angle of screw was 60 degree. The crystallinity of plasma-sprayed HA coatings was 80%, and the coatings with thicknesses of 0, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160, and 200 mm were selected to analyze. 2.2. Finite element analysis According to the angle between the long axis of alveolar bone and chew force which was measured about zero degree in Fig. 1, and also reference oral anatomy and physiology [5], 200 N force (F) was chose to load on the axial direction, as showed in Fig. 2. This magnitude of force was satised the chewing condition after

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 28 85410563; fax: +86 28 85410246. E-mail address: jmluo2006@126.com (J.M. Luo). 0169-4332/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2008.06.165

274

W. Jiang et al. / Applied Surface Science 255 (2008) 273275 Table 1 The mechanical properties of materials Material Ti6Al4V 80% Crystalline HA Cortical bone Cancellous bone Elastic modulus/GPa 110 95 [4] 15.0 1.50 Poissons ratio 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.30

are listed in Table 1. After meshed, there are more than 1,700,000 elements for each model, and 5 layers in HA coatings. The detailed image of meshed model is shown in Fig. 3. 3. Results and discussion Fig. 4 shows the von Mises stress distribution of bone in the case of 80 mm thickness HA coating on the dental implant. The bone stress concentration takes place in the cortical bone for its higher elastic modulus than that of cancellous bone. The maximal bone stress (MBS) (Max point in Fig. 4) is 14.30 MPa which appears near the neck of dental implant on the lingual side. These results accord with the clinical phenomena, and could be explained by the unsymmetry of bone distribution at lingual side and buccal side. Both the bone mass and width at lingual side are smaller than that of buccal side, when chewing force is loaded, the implant would incline to the lingual side. So the bone at lingual side near the neck

Fig. 1. CT section images of mandibular second premolar.

dental implant rehabilitation. Because all parts in FE models response to small strain under this loading condition, the materials mentioned in the models could be considered as linear, elastic and isotropic. The mechanical properties of materials used in the model

Fig. 3. The detailed image of the meshed model.

Fig. 2. Longitudinal cutaway view of the FEA model.

Fig. 4. von Mises stress distribution in the bone.

W. Jiang et al. / Applied Surface Science 255 (2008) 273275

275

Fig. 5. Maximal von Mises stress in bone with different thickness of coatings.

Fig. 7. Path plots of compressive stress in different thickness of coatings conditions.

Fig. 6. The chosen path shows in the longitudinal cutaway view of cortical bone.

of implant is strongly compressed by this incline, then the stress concentration comes out at this position. The stress values in the cancellous bone are at lower level that range from 0.04 to 4.98 MPa. In other cases, the stress distributions of bone in models with different coatings thickness are similar. And also maximal stresses in bone are at the same position. The relation between MBS and the thickness of coatings under the 200 N chewing load is shown in Fig. 5. The magnitude of MBS would decrease with the HA coatings thickness increasing. In case of non-coated implant of which the thickness of the HA coatings is zero, the MBS 16.80 MPa is obviously higher than that in the cases of HA-coated implants. For the 60 mm HA-coated implant, the MBS is 14.96 MPa which is 13.10% lower compared to non-coated implant. This indicate that the HA coatings on the surface of dental implant are beneted to reduce the stress concentration in the bone, and it would be advanced to the early stability of the implant. With the thickness of HA coatings increase from 60 to 120 mm, the decreased trend of the curve becomes smooth. This phenomenon could be interpreted as the thickness of this range is so thin that the effects of the stress distribution in the bone caused by deformation of coatings are unobvious under 200 N force load. However, the effects of deformation become noticeable when the thickness of HA coatings comes to range of 120160 mm, the maximal stresses in bone in this range are rapidly decreased from 13.91 to 12.60 MPa, the bone stress concentration is further reduced. Fig. 7 shows the path plots of compressive stress in different thicknesses of coatings models under 200 N load. The path AB in Fig. 6 starts from point A which is on the middle of the boundary line of cortical bone/coatings, to point B which is at the position of

1.50 mm away to the coatings in the cortical bone. All the curves in the Fig. 7 decrease monotonously, and with the increase of the coatings thickness the curve shift down. With the distance far away from point A, the effects of the coatings on compressive stress in bone become weaker: at the position near point A, the difference of compressive stress in bone is maximal, with the value of 0.41 MPa when contrasting 60 mm thickness of HA coatings to 120 mm, however, at the position B it only 0.13 MPa. Extracellular uid shear forces in bone are of sufcient magnitude to activate bone cells and cause new bone formation [6]. When the appropriate compressive stress acts on bone tissue, the compressive strains in that position induce uid ow in gap junctions, then the shearing actions come in the adjacent osteocytes and osteoblasts that benet to bone grows [7]. The results shown in Fig. 7 reveals that the gradient distribution of compressive stress are stronger in the thinner thickness of HA coatings, and is more benecial to bone regeneration. 4. Conclusion Considering the inuence of residual stress on HA coating strength, the HA coating strength decreased while increase of the coatings thickness. When the thickness of coatings is above 150 mm, by means of present coating technology, the HA coatings would be unsatised to clinic application. So, it would be better to choose the thickness of HA coatings on dental implant is in the range of 60120 mm. Comparing to the non-coated implant, the coatings in this range of thickness not only have enough strength and the effect to reduce the stress concentration, but also benet to the bone regeneration and early stabilization of implant. Acknowledgement This work was supported by NSF China, No. 30471758. References
[1] J. Chen, et al. Bioceramics and Human Body (1992) 78. [2] X. Zhao, J. Zhou, J. Chen, Z. Xingdong, Transactions of 4th World Biomaterials Congress (1992) 210. [3] P. Ma, H.D. Li, et al. Journal of Oral Science Research 21 (2005) 6. [4] C. Zhang, et al. Biomaterials 22 (2001) 1357. [5] P. Xin, et al., Oral Anatomy and Physiology, fourth ed., Peoples Medical Publishing House, Beijing, 2001, p. 209. [6] C.H. Tuner, M.R. Forwood, M.W. Otter, The FASEB Journal 8 (1994) 875. [7] K.M. Reich, C.V. Gay, J.A. Frangos, Journal of Cellular Physiology 143 (1990) 100.