创伤性载荷下不同腭侧颈部骨板厚度对上颌前牙区种植修复体生物力学行为的三维有限元分析

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2026.05.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的探讨不同腭侧颈部骨板厚度条件下，前牙区种植修复体在外伤性冲击载荷作用下的生物力学响应特征。方法基于1名健康成年男性的锥形束CT数据，建立前牙区种植修复体三维有限元模型。在保持几何结构一致的前提下，设置腭侧颈部骨板厚度为0、0.5和1.0 mm，并分别施加颊向冲击和切端冲击载荷，采用双因素设计构建6组模型。通过瞬态动力学有限元分析，获取冲击过程中种植体等效应力及周围皮质骨最大、最小主应力的时间历程峰值。结果种植体等效应力（von Mises应力）峰值主要集中于种植体-基台交界处，且均未超过钛材料屈服强度；周围皮质骨的最大主应力和最小主应力在冲击瞬间均超过其相应强度阈值。随着腭侧颈部骨板厚度增加，两种冲击工况下种植体等效应力及皮质骨主应力峰值均呈下降趋势，其中切端冲击条件下降幅更为明显；总体而言，颊向冲击诱发的应力水平高于切端冲击。结论腭侧颈部骨板厚度及冲击方向显著影响前牙区种植修复体的外伤生物力学响应。外伤性冲击更易导致种植体周围骨组织发生力学超载，应在前牙美学区种植修复的临床设计与风险评估中予以充分重视。

关键词: 牙外伤, 上颌前牙, 种植修复, 三维有限元分析

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the biomechanical response of anterior implant-supported restorations under traumatic impact loading with different palatal cervical bone plate thicknesses. Methods A three-dimensional finite element model of an anterior implant-supported restoration was established based on CBCT data from a healthy adult male. The palatal cervical bone plate thickness was set to 0，0.5，and 1.0 mm，while buccal and incisal impact loads were applied，resulting in six models using a two-factor design. Transient dynamic finite element analysis was conducted to determine the peak time-history responses of implant von Mises stress and the maximum and minimum principal stresses in the surrounding cortical bone. Results Peak implant von Mises stress was concentrated at the implant-abutment junction and remained below the yield strength of titanium. In contrast，the maximum and minimum principal stresses of the cortical bone exceeded their strength thresholds at the moment of impact. Increasing palatal cervical bone plate thickness led to reduced implant and cortical bone stress peaks under both impact conditions，with a greater reduction observed under incisal impact. Overall，buccal impact generated higher stress levels than incisal impact. Conclusion Both palatal cervical bone plate thickness and impact direction significantly affect the traumatic biomechanical behavior of anterior implant-supported restorations. Traumatic impact loading may increase the risk of mechanical overload in peri-implant bone and should be considered in clinical planning and risk assessment for anterior esthetic implant restorations.

Key words: dental trauma, maxillary anterior region, implant-supported restoration, three-dimensional finite element analysis

中图分类号:

R783.4

毕梦霏, 戴书玥, 陈健, 周奕一, 沈铭. 创伤性载荷下不同腭侧颈部骨板厚度对上颌前牙区种植修复体生物力学行为的三维有限元分析[J]. 口腔医学, 2026, 46(5): 344-349.

BI Mengfei, DAI Shuyue, CHEN Jian, ZHOU Yiyi, SHEN Ming. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary anterior implant-supported restorations with different palatal cervical bone plate thicknesses under traumatic loading[J]. Stomatology, 2026, 46(5): 344-349.

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

表2

参考文献 26

[1]	Bastone EB, Freer TJ, McNamara JR. Epidemiology of dental trauma: A review of the literature[J]. Aust Dent J, 2000, 45(1): 2-9.
[2]	Glendor U. Epidemiology of traumatic dental injuries: A 12 year review of the literature[J]. Dent Traumatol, 2008, 24(6): 603-611.
[3]	Corrêa-Silva M, de Vicq Normande Neto H, de Oliveira-Neto OB, et al. Effectiveness of palatally positioned implants in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae: A systematic review[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2023, 27(1): 1-8.
[4]	Alissa R, Oliver RJ. Influence of prognostic risk indicators on osseointegrated dental implant failure: A matched case-control analysis[J]. J Oral Implantol, 2012, 38(1): 51-61.
[5]	Willis RD, DiCosimo CJ. The absence of proprioceptive nerve endings in the human periodontal ligament: The role of periodontal mechanoreceptors in the reflex control of mastication[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1979, 48(2): 108-115.
[6]	Esposito M, Thomsen P, Ericson LE, et al. Histopathologic observations on late oral implant failures[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2000, 2(1): 18-32.
[7]	Shimono M, Ishikawa T, Ishikawa H, et al. Regulatory mechanisms of periodontal regeneration[J]. Microsc Res Tech, 2003, 60(5): 491-502.
[8]	张茜雅, 毕梦霏, 李非璠, 等. 不同腭侧颈部骨板厚度对上颌前牙区种植修复体受力影响的三维有限元研究[J]. 口腔医学, 2025, 45(7): 506-510.
[9]	Huang HM, Ou KL, Wang WN, et al. Dynamic finite element analysis of the human maxillary incisor under impact loading in various directions[J]. J Endod, 2005, 31(10): 723-727.
[10]	Oskui IZ, Hashemi A, Jafarzadeh H, et al. Finite element investigation of human maxillary incisor under traumatic loading: Static vs dynamic analysis[J]. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2018, 155: 121-125.
[11]	Huang HM, Tsai CY, Lee HF, et al. Damping effects on the response of maxillary incisor subjected to a traumatic impact force: A nonlinear finite element analysis[J]. J Dent, 2006, 34(4): 261-268.
[12]	Xie BQ, Chen JL, Zhao TQ, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of anterior fixed partial denture supported by implants with different materials[J]. Ann Anat, 2022, 243: 151943.
[13]	Kurt A, Yaylacı M, Dizdar A, et al. Evaluation of the effect on the permanent tooth germ and the adjacent teeth by finite element impact analysis in the traumatized primary tooth[J]. Int J Paediatr Dent, 2024, 34(6): 822-831.
[14]	Vilela ABF, Soares PBF, Almeida GA, et al. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of teeth adjacent to a traumatized incisor[J]. Dent Traumatol, 2019, 35(2): 128-134.
[15]	Atif M, Tewari N, Reshikesh M, et al. Methods and applications of finite element analysis in dental trauma research: A scoping review[J]. Dent Traumatol, 2024, 40(4): 366-388.
[16]	da Silva BR, Moreira Neto JJS, da Silva FI Jr, et al. Finite element analysis applied to dentoalveolar trauma: Methodology description[J]. ISRN Dent, 2011, 2011: 297132.
[17]	da Silva BR, Moreira Neto JJS, da Silva FI Jr, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the maxillary central incisor in two different situations of traumatic impact[J]. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2013, 16(2): 158-164.
[18]	Vilela ABF, Soares PBF, de Oliveira FS, et al. Dental trauma on primary teeth at different root resorption stages: A dynamic finite element impact analysis of the effect on the permanent tooth germ[J]. Dent Traumatol, 2019, 35(2): 101-108.
[19]	Poiate IAVP, de Vasconcellos AB, de Santana RB, et al. Three-dimensional stress distribution in the human periodontal ligament in masticatory, parafunctional, and trauma loads: Finite element analysis[J]. J Periodontol, 2009, 80(11): 1859-1867.
[20]	Poiate IAVP, de Vasconcellos AB, Poiate Junior E, et al. Stress distribution in the cervical region of an upper central incisor in a 3D finite element model[J]. Braz Oral Res, 2009, 23(2): 161-168.
[21]	Miura J, Maeda Y. Biomechanical model of incisor avulsion: A preliminary report[J]. Dent Traumatol, 2008, 24(4): 454-457.
[22]	Verissimo C, Costa PVM, Santos-Filho PCF, et al. Evaluation of a dentoalveolar model for testing mouthguards: Stress and strain analyses[J]. Dent Traumatol, 2016, 32(1): 4-13.
[23]	de Oliveira Melo JMF, Willmersdorf RB, de Siqueira Lages A, et al. Evaluation of stress and fatigue on different implant lengths in the rehabilitation of atrophic mandibles with full-arch fixed prosthesis using finite element method[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2022, 37(5): 971-981.
[24]	Wu WL, Song LY, Liu JM, et al. Finite element analysis of the angle range in trans-inferior alveolar nerve implantation at the mandibular second molar[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 928.
[25]	Ouldyerou A, Merdji A, Aminallah L, et al. Biomechanical performance of Ti-PEEK dental implants in bone: An in-silico analysis[J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2022, 134: 105422.
[26]	Kapoor S, Rodrigues S, Mahesh M, et al. Evaluation of stress generated with different abutment materials and angulations under axial and oblique loading in the anterior maxilla: Three-dimensional finite element analysis[J]. Int J Dent, 2021, 2021: 9205930.

材料	弹性模量/MPa	泊松比	密度/（g/cm³）
皮质骨	13 700	0.30	2.00
松质骨	1 370	0.30	0.70
钛（种植体、基台）	110 000	0.34	4.50
二氧化锆（冠）	210 000	0.35	2.40
钢球	200 000	0.30	0.95

腭侧颈部骨板厚度/mm	种植体等效应力		皮质骨最小主应力绝对值		皮质骨最大主应力
腭侧颈部骨板厚度/mm	颊向冲击	切端冲击	颊向冲击	切端冲击	颊向冲击	切端冲击
0	601.50	419.80	1 329.60	907.01	1 255.40	770.52
0.5	540.66	392.37	1 222.80	805.43	1 184.40	688.34
1.0	522.68	370.10	1 199.30	727.03	989.80	569.92