Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁöÁö ÇÏ¾Ç ÄµÆ¿·¹¹ö º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ µðÀÚÀο¡ µû¸¥ ÀúÀ۾РºÐ»ê¿¡ °üÇÑ »ïÂ÷¿ø À¯ÇÑ¿ä¼Ò ºÐ¼®

Three-dimensional finite element analysis on stress distribution of the mandibular implant-supported cantilever prostheses depending on the designs

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 47±Ç 1È£ p.70 ~ 81
¹ÝÀçÇõ, ½Å»ó¿Ï, ±è¼±Á¾, ÀÌÁ¤·Ä,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹ÝÀçÇõ ( Ban Jae-Hyurk ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø °í±ÞÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶Çаú
½Å»ó¿Ï ( Shin Sang-Wan ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø °í±ÞÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶Çаú
±è¼±Á¾ ( Kim Sun-Jong ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø °í±ÞÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶Çаú
ÀÌÁ¤·Ä ( Lee Jeong-Yeol ) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡ÀÇÇдëÇпø °í±ÞÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶Çаú

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû: ĵƿ·¹¹öÀÇ À§Ä¡¿Í ±æÀÌ´Â ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿Í º¸Ã¶¹° ¶ÇÇÑ ÁÖÀ§ °ñÁ¶Á÷ÀÇ ÀÀ·ÂºÐÆ÷¿¡ Áß¿äÇÑ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ£´Ù. ÇÏ¾Ç ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀÇ °æ¿ì ±âÁ¸¿¡´Â ¾çÃø ÀÌ°ø»çÀÌ¿¡ 4 - 6°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ ½Ä¸³ÇÏ°í »óºÎº¸Ã¶¹°À» ĵƿ·¹¹öÇüÀ¸·Î Á¦ÀÛÇؿԴµ¥ ĵƿ·¹¹ö ºÎÀ§¿¡ ¹«¸®ÇÑ ÇÏÁßÀÌ ÀÛ¿ëÇÏ°Ô µÇ¸é ÀÀ·ÂÀÇ ÁýÁß°ú ±ÁÈû Çö»óÀ¸·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© ÃÖÈĹæ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ºÎÀ§ÀÇ ÁöÁö°ñ Æı«¿Í ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¹× »óºÎ º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ ÆÄÀýÀ» ÃÊ·¡Çß´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ÄµÆ¿·¹¹öÀÇ ¾àÁ¡À» º¸¿ÏÇϱâ À§ÇØ 1992³â McCartney°¡ Rest implant °³³äÀ» 2003³â¿¡´Â Malo¢¥ µîÀÌ All-on-Four implant °³³äÀ» ¼Ò°³ÇÏ¿© ±âÁ¸ º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ ÄµÆ¿·¹¹ö ±æÀ̸¦ ÁÙÀÌ·Á°í ³ë·ÂÇÏ¿´´Ù.

Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ÄµÆ¿·¹¹öÇü º¸Ã¶¹°°ú rest implant, All-on-Four implant ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ» »ïÂ÷¿ø ¸ðµ¨¸µÇÏ¿© ÇÏÁßÀ» Á¦ 1´ë±¸Ä¡ ºÎÀ§¿¡ ¼öÁ÷À¸·Î 300 N, ¼öÆòÀ¸·Î ¼³Ãø¿¡¼­ ÇùÃøÀ¸·Î 75 NÀ» °¡ÇÏ¿© ÁöÁö°ñ°ú ÀÓÇöõÆ®, »óºÎº¸Ã¶¹°¿¡ ¹ß»ýÇÏ´Â ÀÀ·ÂÀÇ Å©±â¿Í ºÐÆ÷ ¹× ºÐ»ê¾ç»óÀ» À¯ÇÑ¿ä¼Ò Çؼ® ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ÀÎ ANSYS (Ver.10.0, Swanson Analysis System Inc., USA)¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: 1. ·¹½ºÆ® ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¹× All-on-Four ÀÓÇöõÆ®¹ýÀº ±âÁ¸ ¹æ¹ý¿¡ ºñÇØ ÇϾǰñ°ú »óºÎ º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ ÀÀ·Â ºÐ»ê¿¡ Å©°Ô ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. 2. ÁöÁö°ñ, ÀÓÇöõÆ®, »óºÎ º¸Ã¶¹°¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÀÀ·ÂºÐ»êÀº ·¹½ºÆ® ÀÓÇöõÆ®°¡ °¡Àå ¿ì¼öÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. 3. °°Àº °³¼öÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÎ °æ¿ì ÈĹæ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ °æ»ç½ÃÄÑ ÄµÆ¿·¹¹öÀÇ ¾çÀ» ÁÙÀÌ´Â °ÍÀÌ ±âÁ¸ ¹æ½Ä¿¡ ºñÇØ ÀúÀ۾РºÐ»ê¿¡ À¯¸®ÇÏ´Ù.

Statement of problem: The position and length of cantilever influence on the stress distribution of implants, superstructure and bone. In edentulous mandible, implant-supported cantilever prostheses that based 4 or 6 implants between mental foramens has been attempted. Excessive bite force loaded at cantilever prosthesis causes bone resorption and breakage of superstructure prosthesis around posterior implants. To complement the cantilever length of conventional prosthesis, In 1992, (McCartney) introduced "cantilever -rest - implant" and Malo reported "All-on-Four" in 2003.

Purpose: Analyze and compare the stress distribution of conventional cantilever prostheses with rest implant and Allon-FourTM implant prostheses.

Material and method: The external loads(300 N vertically, 75 N horizontally) are applied to first molar area. The stress value, stress distribution and aspect of stress dispersion are analyzed by three-dimensional finite element analysis program, ANSYS ver. 10.0.

Results: 1. The rest implant and¡° All-on-Four¡±implant system are superior to conventional cantilever prostheses to reduce stress on the bone and the superstructure around implants. 2. The rest implant was of the greatest advantage to
stress distribution on bone, implant and superstructure. 3. With same number of implants, distally tilted implants are preferred to conventional cantilever prostheses for reducing the length of cantilever.

Å°¿öµå

3Â÷¿ø À¯ÇÑ¿ä¼Ò¹ý;·¹½ºÆ® ÀÓÇöõÆ®;ÀÀ·ÂºÐ»ê
Three-dimensional FEA;Rest implant;All-on-Four;Stress distribution

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed