Table 1.
Material properties used in finite element analysis.
Fig 1.
Designing of porous implant to solid implant; (a) compressive simulation of porous BCC structure to obtain effective material properties, and (b) Dense and porous implant with effective material properties.
Fig 2.
Finite element modeling and analysis of mandible implants; (a) dimensions of modeling of bones, bride crowns, implants, and region of interest, and (b) design parameters, meshes, elements, interactions, loadings, and boundary conditions.
Fig 3.
A detailed graphical presentation of the fixation technique of different implants, regions of interest, and bone health.
Table 2.
Implantation scenarios with bone health, implant type, ROI and loading conditions.
Table 3.
Simulation runs for all parameters including bone, implant, ROI, and loading conditions.
Fig 4.
A detailed process of iterative simulation coupled with bone density algorithm; (a) a function of stimulus and related bone density changes, and (b) iterative calculations of finite element analysis coupled with user’s subroutine for changes in bone density.
Fig 5.
Average strain energy density (SED) in the region of interest (ROI) calculated using iterative calculations of finite element analysis; (a) TUB-1, (b) TUB-2, (c) TUB-3, and (d) TUB-4.
Fig 6.
Average Stimulus () in the region of interest (ROI) calculated using iterative calculations of finite element analysis; (a) TUB-1, (b) TUB-2, (c) TUB-3, and (d) TUB-4.
Fig 7.
Average Young’s modulus (E) in the region of interest (ROI) calculated using iterative calculations of finite element analysis; (a) TUB-1, (b) TUB-2, (c) TUB-3, (d) TUB-4, and (e) contour plot showing average Young’s moduli (MPa) of all the simulated cases.
Fig 8.
A spatial distribution of changes in bone density in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-1.
Fig 9.
A spatial distribution of changes in bone density in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-2.
Fig 10.
A spatial distribution of changes in bone density in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-3.
Fig 11.
A spatial distribution of changes in bone density in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-4.
Fig 12.
A quantitative bone density distribution in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-1 in the last iteration; (a) P0.45, E110, (b) P0.7, E110, (c) P0.45, E10, and (d) P0.7, E10.
Fig 13.
A quantitative bone density distribution in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-2 in the last iteration; (a) P0.45, E110, (b) P0.7, E110, (c) P0.45, E10, and (d) P0.7, E10.
Fig 14.
A quantitative bone density distribution in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-3 in the last iteration; (a) P0.45, E110, (b) P0.7, E110, (c) P0.45, E10, and (d) P0.7, E10.
Fig 15.
A quantitative bone density distribution in the region of interest (ROI) in the case of TUB-4 in the last iteration; (a) P0.45, E110, (b) P0.7, E110, (c) P0.45, E10, and (d) P0.7, E10.
Fig 16.
Simulated results of von Mises stresses (MPa) in implants in the cases; (a) TUB-1, (b) TUB-2, (c) TUB-3, and (d) TUB-4.
Fig 17.
Contour plot showing von Mises stresses (MPa) in all implants in the last iterations of simulations.