Bone Stress Evaluation with and without Cortical Bone Using Several Dental Restorative Materials Subjected to Impact Load: A Fully 3D Transient Finite-Element Study

Abstract

Statement of problem. Previous peri-implantitis, peri-implant bone regeneration, or immediate implant placement postextraction may be responsible for the absence of cortical bone. Single crown materials are then relevant when dynamic forces are transferred into bone tissue and, therefore, the presence (or absence) of cortical bone can affect the long-term survival of the implant. Purpose: the purpose of this study is to assess the biomechanical response of dental rehabilitation when selecting different crown materials in models with and without cortical bone. Methods: several crown materials were considered for modeling six types of crown rehabilitation: full metal (MET), metal-ceramic (MCER), metal-composite (MCOM), peek-composite (PKCOM), carbon fiber-composite (FCOM), and carbon fiber-ceramic (FCCER). An impact-load dynamic finite-element analysis was carried out on all the 3D models of crowns mentioned above to assess their mechanical behavior against dynamic excitation. Implant-crown rehabilitation models with and without cortical bone were analyzed to compare how the load-impact actions affect both type of models. Results: numerical simulation results showed important differences in bone tissue stresses. The results show that flexible restorative materials reduce the stress on the bone and would be especially recommendable in the absence of cortical bone. Conclusions: this study demonstrated that more stress is transferred to the bone when stiffer materials (metal and/or ceramic) are used in implant supported rehabilitations; conversely, more flexible materials transfer less stress to the implant connection. Also, in implant-supported rehabilitations, more stress is transferred to the bone by dynamic forces when cortical bone is absent.

Comparative Evaluation of Stress Acting on Abutment, Bone, and Connector of Different Designs of Acid-Etched Resin-Bonded Fixed Partial Dentures: Finite Element Analysis

“…RBFPDs were first described in the 1970s and have evolved significantly ( Medina-Galvez et al, 2021 ). The development of resin cement has revolutionized prosthesis retention and bonding.…”

“…Structural weight optimization is the best solution to obtain the parts with reduced weight without compromising their strength. FEA is a quick and low-cost method to investigate stress distribution and strain patterns of complex restorations such as fixed partial dentures (FPDs) ( Medina-Galvez et al, 2021 ). Many studies have compared the functional behavior of three-unit RBFPDs, two-unit cantilevered RBFPDs ( Lin et al, 2005 ; Tanoue, 2016 ), and cantilevered RBFPDs ( Acharya et al, 2021 ; Medina-Galvez et al, 2021 ).…”

“…FEA is a quick and low-cost method to investigate stress distribution and strain patterns of complex restorations such as fixed partial dentures (FPDs) ( Medina-Galvez et al, 2021 ). Many studies have compared the functional behavior of three-unit RBFPDs, two-unit cantilevered RBFPDs ( Lin et al, 2005 ; Tanoue, 2016 ), and cantilevered RBFPDs ( Acharya et al, 2021 ; Medina-Galvez et al, 2021 ). The three-dimensional assessments of the abutment teeth are necessary to accomplish more significant treatment outcomes using an RBFPD.…”

“…Based on the three-dimensional information, clinicians would choose the types of frameworks, such as three- or two-unit RBFDPs supporting the tooth (abutment) axis, periodontal structure, and the possible preparation area. Few published studies reported using FEA in prosthodontics ( Botelho, 2000 ; Zalkind et al, 2003 ; Aversa et al, 2009 ; Silva et al, 2009 ; Anweigi et al, 2020 ; Medina-Galvez et al, 2021 ), and among them, very few studies focused on the stress distribution of the components of RBFDs ( Botelho, 2000 ; Chow et al, 2002 ; Zalkind et al, 2003 ). Understanding the mechanism of RBFPD failures and improved knowledge of the biomechanical behavior of these restorations is obligatory ( Botelho et al, 2014 ; Robati Anaraki et al, 2019 ; Esquivel-Upshaw et al, 2020 ).…”

A Systematic Study of Restorative Crown-Materials Combinations for Dental Implants: Characterization of Mechanical Properties under Dynamic Loads

“…The material choice for implant-supported crowns is a determining factor for the survival of prostheses and implants [ 11 , 12 ], since the crown stiffness plays a crucial role during the collision since the maximum force and maximum stress depend on how it absorbs the impact energy [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. In this project, an in-depth study of the mechanical response was conducted for different Young’s modulus of the crown materials, density, Poisson’s ratio, and initial impact velocity.…”