Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) Indonesian Journal of Dental Medicine
Alhamdani, Faaiz
Unknown Affiliation
Dentistry

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Stress Distribution Around Two Dental Implant Materials with New Designs: Comparative Finite Element Analysis Study Alhamdani, Faaiz; Rasheed, Khawla H.; Mahdi, Amjed
Indonesian Journal of Dental Medicine Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021): Indonesian Journal of Dental Medicine
Publisher : Faculty of Dental Medicine Universitas Airlangga

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20473/ijdm.v4i1.2021.19-25

Abstract

Background: The introduction of modified thread designs is one of the research areas of interest in the dental implantology field. Two suggested Buttress and Reverse Buttress thread designs in TiG5 and TiG4 models are tested against a standard TiG5 Fin Thread design (IBS®). Purpose: The study aims to compare stress distribution around the suggested designs and Fin Thread design. Methods: Three dental implant models: Fin Thread design, and newly suggested Buttress and Reverse Buttress designs of both TiG5 and TiG4 models were tested using FEA for stress distribution using static (70N, 0°) and (400N, 30°) occlusal loads. Results: The main difference between the suggested Buttress design and Fin Thread design lies in the overload (400N, 30°) condition. Maximum Von Mises stress is less in Buttress design than Fin Thread design. On the other hand the level of Von Mises stress over the buccolingual slop of the cancellous bone in Fin Thread design liess within the lowest stress level. The suggested Reverse Buttress design, on the other hand showed almost uniform stress distribution in both TiG4 and TiG4 models with maximum Von Mises stress higher than the elastic modulus of cancellous bone in overload (400N, 30°) condition. Conclusion: The suggested TiG4 Buttress design might have a minor advantage of stress level in cases of stress overload. In contrast, Fin Thread design shows minimal stress over the buccolingual slop of the cancellous bone. The suggested Reverse Buttress design might be more suitable for the D1 bone quality region with the advantage of almost uniform stress distribution
The influence of peripheral-bone-removal protocol on bone augmentation in dental implant surgery: 5-year clinical retrospective study Alhamdani, Faaiz; Hassan, Ahmad Fliah; Al-Nuaimy, Amaal
Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) Vol. 57 No. 3 (2024): September
Publisher : Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga https://fkg.unair.ac.id/en

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i3.p158-163

Abstract

Background: Bone augmentation aims to provide sufficient bone volume around dental implants. Available bone augmentation methods include autogenous bone grafts, xenografts, and alloplastic materials. All have their advantages and disadvantages. However, autogenous bone graft remains the gold standard for bone augmentation. Autogenous bone grafts are usually taken from the patient’s oral donor sites such as the chin and mandibular ramus. However, there is a newly developed implant preparation protocol, known as the peripheral-bone-removal (PBR) technique, which can provide bone augmentation from the dental implant site. Purpose: This study aims to determine the need for bone substitute materials in the PBR technique in dental implant surgery. Methods: This study included 130 patients who were treated for dental implants. These patients were treated between 7.1.2018 and 3.2.2023. Six dental implant systems were used. Five of these systems (ImplantKa®, DeTech®, NeoBiotech®, Easy Implant®, and Dentaurum® Implant) used a conventional method (sequential drilling technique). The sixth (IBS®) system used the PBR protocol. Both descriptive and Chi-Square Test statistics were used for data analysis. Results: The included patients were treated with a total of 198 dental implants. Seventy patients were treated with the PBR protocol, while 60 patients were treated with the sequential drilling protocol. For the PBR protocol, only 2 cases required bone substitute material, whereas 11 cases treated with the sequential drilling protocol required augmentation materials. This difference between both drilling protocols has been statistically confirmed (P=0.008). Conclusion: The PBR technique appears to be less traumatic and more cost-effective for cases that require horizontal bone augmentation.
Co-Authors Al-Nuaimy, Amaal Hassan, Ahmad Fliah Mahdi, Amjed Rasheed, Khawla H.