0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Bone/Orthopedics

Simulation of Impact Test for Determining “Health” of Percutaneous Bone Anchored Implants

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Jones, G. Faulkner, D. Raboud

Department of Mechanical Engineering, 4-9 Mechanical Engineering Building,  University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G8, Canada

K. Fyfe

 Dynastream Innovations Inc., 228 River Avenue, Cochrane, Alberta T4C 2C1, Canada

J. Wolfaardt

COMPRU, Caritas Health Group,  Misericordia Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta T5R 4H5, Canada

J Biomech Eng 128(5), 647-653 (Feb 23, 2006) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2241685 History: Received March 31, 2005; Revised February 23, 2006

There is an ongoing requirement for a clinically relevant, noninvasive technique to monitor the integrity of percutaneous implants used for dental restorations, bone-anchored hearing aids, and to retain extra-oral prostheses (ear, eye, nose, etc). Because of the limitations of conventional diagnostic techniques (CT, MRI), mechanical techniques that measure the dynamic response of the implant-abutment system are being developed. This paper documents a finite element analysis that simulates a transient response to mechanical impact testing using contact elements. The detailed model allows for a specific interface between the implant and bone and characterizes potential clinical situations including loss of bone margin height, loss of osseointegration, and development of a soft connective tissue layer at the bone-implant interface. The results also show that the expected difference in interface stiffness between soft connective tissue and osseointegrated bone will cause easily measurable changes in the response of the implant/abutment system. With respect to the loss of bone margin height, changes in the order of 0.2mm should be detectable, suggesting that this technique is at least as sensitive as radiography. A partial loss of osseointegration, while not being as readily evident as a bone margin loss, would still be detectable for losses as small as 0.5mm.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Typical transient analysis signal

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

First natural frequency comparison for oral implants

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Second natural frequency comparison for oral implants

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

First natural frequency comparison for BAHA implants

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Second natural frequency comparison for BAHA implants

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

First mode response to changing interface stiffness—oral implant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Second mode response to changing interface stiffness—oral implant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

First mode response to changing interface stiffness—BAHA implant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Second mode response to changing interface stiffness—BAHA implant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Uniform Bernoulli-Euler beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Schematic of simplified in vitro model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Testing apparatus for in vitro model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Finite element model used for impact analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Typical implant/abutment system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Typical accelerometer signal

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic of resulting motion of implant and rod during a normal strike

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In