Biomechanics of 3-implant-supported and 4-implant-supported mandibular screw-retained prostheses: A 3D finite element analysis study

Elsayyad, Ahmed A; Abbas, Nadia A.; Abdelnabi, Nouran; Osman, Reham B.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.015

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results are seen by some authors (Sevimay et al [ 43 ]; Jeong et al [ 44 ]). Elsayyad et al in their FEA study using 3-implant-supported and 4-implant-supported mandibular screw-retained prostheses, showed, under 300-N and 160-N oblique loading, that the highest stresses were recorded on the loading side at the neck of the most distal implant in the 3-implant-supported model [ 45 ], Similar stresses were also observed in our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium is the main component of dental implants. It is also routinely used as a framework material for implant-supported full-arch prostheses due to its low density, biocompatibility, and other mechanical properties. Remarkable mechanical properties such as lesser mass density and higher young’s modulus of graphene have gained popularity among scientists, improving the properties of biomedical implants. Thus, our study aimed to compare the outcome through the von Mises stresses generated on All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, as well as on the framework, and evaluate the effect of stress patterns on the crestal bone around implants in the mandible. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) study was carried out using edentulous mandible models. Four 3D FEA models with 3 and 6 implants were used (Model 1: Titanium bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 2: Graphene bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 3: Titanium bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted; Model 4: Graphene bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted) in order to simulate endosseous implant designs. The implant measuring 4.2 mm in diameter and 11.5 mm in length were used. The most distal implants in the 3-implant models were placed with angulation of 30 degrees; in 6 implants, they were vertically placed. All the models were analyzed for vertical and oblique axis with a single force magnitude of 100 N. In all four implant models and under loading conditions, the peak stress points were always on the neck of the most distal implant. von Mises stresses were within the normal stress range. In a conventional six-straight implant model supported by a titanium framework, the cortical stress in the region of implants was 25.27 MPa, whereas, in the graphene framework, it was 12.18 MPa. Under vertical load, there was a significant difference in the cortical stress around the tilted implants (30 degrees) in the 3-implant system of titanium and graphene frameworks, respectively, 70.31 MPa and 21.27 MPa. The graphene framework demonstrated better results than the titanium framework for the conventional six-implant system under vertical load, achieving stress of 30.09 MPa and 76.60 MPa, respectively. In the case of the 3-implant system, a significant difference in the bar stress was observed between graphene and titanium, respectively, 256.32 MPa and 180.1 MPa of bar stress. Within the limitation of this study, the peri-implant stresses were decreased using graphene framework models. Hence, it was possible to conclude that the best load-bearing capacity results were found in the graphene framework group compared to the titanium framework for All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, even though both materials are reliable options used as framework materials in implant-supported full-arch prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. In a similar study conducted by Elsayed et al [ 31 ], it has been shown that stresses were lower in the peri-implant bone when the prosthesis was opposed by acrylic denture in comparison to natural teeth. In our study, using an implant-supported ceramic crown as an antagonist resulted in the highest stress values among all the groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Evaluation of Stresses on Implant, Bone, and Restorative Materials Caused by Different Opposing Arch Materials in Hybrid Prosthetic Restorations Using the All-on-4 Technique

Haroun¹,

Ozan²

2021

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The long-term success of dental implants is greatly influenced by the use of appropriate materials while applying the “All-on-4” concept in the edentulous jaw. This study aims to evaluate the stress distribution in the “All-on-4” prosthesis across different material combinations using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) and to evaluate which opposing arch material has destructive effects on which prosthetic material while offering certain recommendations to clinicians accordingly. Acrylic and ceramic-based hybrid prosthesis have been modelled on a rehabilitated maxilla using the “All-on-4” protocol. Using different materials and different supports in the opposing arch (natural tooth, and implant/ceramic, and acrylic), a multi-vectorial load has been applied. To measure stresses in bone, maximum and minimum principal stress values were calculated, while Von Mises stress values were obtained for prosthetic materials. Within a single group, the use of an acrylic implant-supported prosthesis as an antagonist to a full arch implant-supported prosthesis yielded lower maximum (Pmax) and minimum (Pmin) principal stresses in cortical bone. Between different groups, maxillary prosthesis with polyetheretherketone as framework material showed the lowest stress values among other maxillary prostheses. The use of rigid materials with higher moduli of elasticity may transfer higher stresses to the peri implant bone. Thus, the use of more flexible materials such as acrylic and polyetheretherketone could result in lower stresses, especially upon atrophic bones.

show abstract

“…In addition, compressive and tensile stresses were appropriate indicators of bone remodelling, as they have been widely assessed by biomechanical finite element analysis [25][26][27]. Additionally, the equivalent strain has frequently been used to evaluate the deformation in bone tissue and predict the remodelling nature of peri-tooth/implant bone [28,29]. Therefore, the maximum and minimum principal stresses (tensile and compressive stresses) and the equivalent strains in the peri-tooth bone tissue were measured separately.…”

Section: Results Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical behaviour of implant prostheses and adjacent teeth according to bone quality: A finite element analysis

Wang

et al. 2022

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contribution of biomechanical factors in the formation of proximal contact loss has been observed, but there is little research on the mechanisms by which they contribute. Using finite element analysis, this study aimed to analyse the impact of bone quality on the biomechanical behaviour of a dentition consisting of implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. The occlusal load was applied on the implant/tooth crown. In the mesiodistal direction, the adjacent natural tooth mesially to the implant denture had the tendency for mesial movement, while the distal adjacent natural tooth had the tendency for distal movement. For the supporting bone around the mesial adjacent tooth, the maximum/minimum principal stress and strain values on the mesial side of the bone were higher than those on the distal side of the bone. Stress and strain values on the mesial side of the supporting bone around the distal adjacent tooth were lower than those on the distal side. With decreasing bone density, displacements of teeth and the implant denture, principal stresses and equivalent strains on tooth supporting bone increased. Studies on biomechanical behaviours of a tooth‐implant dentition may provide a deeper understanding of implant‐induced dental adaptive processes such as proximal contact loss.

show abstract

Biomechanics of 3-implant-supported and 4-implant-supported mandibular screw-retained prostheses: A 3D finite element analysis study

Cited by 18 publications

References 35 publications

Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

Evaluation of Stresses on Implant, Bone, and Restorative Materials Caused by Different Opposing Arch Materials in Hybrid Prosthetic Restorations Using the All-on-4 Technique

Biomechanical behaviour of implant prostheses and adjacent teeth according to bone quality: A finite element analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About