Kolesnychenko M. O., Chernenko V. M.

BIOMECHANICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR CHOOSING THE DIAMETER OF BONE SUBSTITUTE GRANULES DEPENDING ON BONE DENSITY IN THE PRESENCE OF A BONE DEFECT

---

Show/Download

About the author:

Kolesnychenko M. O., Chernenko V. M.

Heading:

DENTISTRY

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

The result of dental implantation depends on the integration of the graft during bone grafting, which is a routine step, especially when the bone volume is insufficient for implantation. Bone density is an important factor that has a significant impact on the process of dental implant integration, as it determines not only its primary stabilization, but can also affect the processes of fibroosteointegration. The elastic modulus of cortical bone helps to manage the load on the crestal surface, and excessive load can provoke bone resorption or implant rejection. The aim of the study: to substantiate the product of the diameter of the bone substitute granules and the type of density of the mandibular bone. We have established the physical constants of the components of the stress tensor, namely the projections onto the abscissa axis of the stress vectors that can act within the area under investigation, as a rule, perpendicularly, each stress vector is described as a separate component, and are the values of the normal component of the stress vector at any point of a spherically convex body. Depending on the diameter of the selected granules, it is important to know not only the stress strength and the direction of action of external forces, but also the components of the stress state of internal forces and the diagram of the distribution of acting forces depending on the diameter of the granule with the determination of the height of its cross section. When planning the augmentation of the alveolar process, when choosing the size of the bone substitute granules, it is necessary to take into account the density of the bone tissue and the degree of compaction of the xenograft, which has a positive effect on the results of the surgical stage of dental implantation.

Tags:

Bibliography:

1. Avetikov DS, Pronina OM, Lokes KP, Bukhanchenko OP. Suchasni uyavlennya pro umovy, shcho obmezhuyut vybir metodu implantatsiyi zubiv u verkhniy i nyzhniy shchelepakh. Visnyk problem biolohiyi ta medytsyny. 2017;4.3(141):20-27. DOI: 10.29254/2077-4214-2017-4-3-141-20-27. [in Ukrainian].
2. Thoma DS, Gil A, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE. Management and prevention of soft tissue complications in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):116-129. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12415.
3. Kumar P, Vinitha B, Fathima G. Bone grafts in dentistry. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2013;5(1):S125-S127. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.113312.
4. Zigmantavičius J, Kilinskaitė G, Leketas M. Dimensional changes of buccal bone after immediate implantation using different grafting materials: A systematic review. Ann. Dent. Spec. 2023;1(1):7-15. DOI: 10.51847/vykVdVPn8e.
5. Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR, Khurshid Z, Shavandi A, Ratnayake J. Bone Grafts and Substitutes in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments. Molecules. 2021;26(10):3007. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26103007.
6. Khattou VV, Ivanytska OS, Havryliev VM, Buhanchenko OP, Boyko IV, Lokes KP, et al. Dynamics of bone formation and osteoresorption markers in patients with postoperative mandibular bone defects. World of Medicine and Biology. 2023;19(86):167-170. DOI: 10.26724/2079-8334-2023-4-86-167-170.
7. Bayat N, Ghavimi MA, Rahimipour K. Radiographic texture analysis of the hard tissue changes following socket preservation with allograft and xenograft materials for dental implantation: A randomized clinical trial. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023;28:705-713. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3228872/v1.
8. Kolesnichenko MO, Savchenko DV, Savchenko VV, Ivaniuk OS, Zhyvotovskyi IV, Yacenko PI, et al. Dynamics of changes in biochemical markers of blood serum after removal of mandibular molars and augmentation of the alveolar process. World of Medicine and Biology. 2023;1(83):96-9. DOI: 10.26724/2079-8334-2023-1-83-96-99.
9. Cucchi A, Chierico A, Fontana F, Mazzocco F, Cinquegrana C, Belleggia F, et al. Statements and Recommendations for Guided Bone Regeneration: Consensus Report of the Guided Bone Regeneration Symposium Held in Bologna, October 15 to 16, 2016. Implant Dent. 2019;28(4):388-399. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000909.
10. Kong ZL, Wang GG, Liu XY, Ye ZY, Xu DQ, Ding X. Influence of bone anatomical morphology of mandibular molars on dental implant based on CBCT. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):528. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01888-3.
11. Kaur J, Kumar S, Aggarwal R, Singh AR, Sharma M, Sharma R, et al. Biomechanical Analysis of Angled Abutments in the Anterior Maxilla: Impact of Bone Quality and Loading Conditions Using Finite Element Analysis. Cureus. 2025;17(5):e84329. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.84329.
12. Devlin H, Horner K, Ledgerton D. A comparison of maxillary and mandibular bone mineral densities. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:323-327. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70245-8.
13. Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol. 1997;23(3):104-11.

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2025 Issue 4, 179, 420-427 pages, index UDC 616.716.4:616.314-089.843

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2025-4-179-420-427