Abstract
Bruxism is an unconscious, involuntary and sustained motor activity that results in excessive teeth grinding or jaw clenching that could affect patients’ implants and rehabilitations. The aetiology for bruxism remains unknown, but it is known to involve multiple factors. The literature lacks studies on the possible effect of implant morphology on the resistance of the bone-implant osseointegrated interface when bruxism is present. Our objective is to assess the mechanical response of the bone-implant interface in bruxist patients whose implant prostheses are subjected to parafunctional cyclic loading over a simulated period of 10 years. A comparison was carried out between two implant types (M-12 and Astra Tech), and a pattern of bone loss was established considering both the stress state and the cortical bone surface loss as the evaluation criteria. Numerical simulation techniques based on the finite element analysis method were applied in a dynamic analysis of the received forces, together with a constitutive model of bone remodelling that alters the physical properties of the bone. The simulated cortical bone surface loss at the implant neck area was 8.6% greater in the Astra implant than in the M-12 implant. Compared to the M-12 implant, the higher sustained stress observed over time in the Astra implant, together with the greater cortical bone surface loss that occurred at its neck area, may be related to the major probability of failure of the prostheses placed over Astra implants in bruxist patients.
Highlights
Bruxism is a persistent mandibular parafunction whose aetiology remains unknown, but it is known that multiple factors are involve [1,2,3,4,5]
The same occurred in the area that reacted depending on the direction in which the lateral component of the loading had been applied
At the initial stress state of both implants, an overloading occurred on the left part of the cortical bone area at the implant neck, obtaining lower stress levels in the apical region
Summary
Bruxism is a persistent mandibular parafunction whose aetiology remains unknown, but it is known that multiple factors are involve [1,2,3,4,5]. Bruxism has been categorised as centric, lateral eccentric, anterior eccentric, mixed eccentric and extra eccentric mandibular movement [7]. Bruxism may be classified into primary or secondary conditions. Primary bruxism may be nocturnal or diurnal [7,17,18,19,20,21]. Nocturnal or sleep bruxism (eccentric), characterised by parafunctional grinding forces, affects 10% of the population (normally called ‘bruxist patients’) and seems to diminish with age [7,17,18,21]. Diurnal or wakeful bruxism (centric), which manifests as with parafunctional clenching forces between antagonist occlusal surfaces without movement, is more prevalent in women (usually called ‘clencher patients’)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
