Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 21;28(2):e117–e120. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003305

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

The influence of implant diameter and length on the orbital bone maximum stress values. (A) In model 1, the reductions of the maximum stress values were 45.2% (diameter of 3.0–3.75 mm), 25.3% (diameter of 3.75–4.2 mm), 17.2% (diameter of 4.2–5.0 mm), and 5.4% (diameter of 5.0–6.0 mm) respectively. (B) In model 2, the reductions of the maximum stress values in the bone around the orbital implant were 51.9% (diameter of 3.0–3.75 mm), 35.4% (diameter of 3.75–4.2 mm), 19.7% (diameter of 4.2–5.0 mm), and 8.1% (diameter of 5.0–6.0 mm) respectively. (C) In model 1, the reductions of the maximum stress values were 28.8% (length of 3–4 mm), 19.2% (length of 4–6 mm), 9.6% (length of 6–8 mm), and 4.3% (length of 8–10 mm), respectively. (D) In model 2, the reductions of the maximum stress values in the bone around the orbital implant were 35.5% (length of 3–4 mm), 21.1% (length of 4–6 mm), 10.9% (length of 6–8 mm), and 5.4% (length of 8–10 mm), respectively.