Effect of Prosthetic Framework Material, Cantilever Length and Opposing Arch on Peri-Implant Strain in an All-on-Four Implant Prostheses

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the effect of prosthetic framework material and cantilever length on peri-implant strain in mandibular all-on-four implant-supported prostheses with different types of arch antagonist forces. Materials and Methods: Models simulating a completely edentulous mandibular arch fabricated in heat-cured acrylic resin were used. On the acrylic models, four implants were placed at regions 34, 32, 42, and 44 simulating all-on-four implant placements. Implant-supported screw-retained fixed prosthesis frameworks were fabricated using three different materials (cobalt-chromium, zirconia, and polyetheretherketone) and with three different cantilever lengths (zero mm, 15 mm, and 25 mm). Strain gauges were attached on the model at the buccal and lingual positions of each implant. Forces simulating opposing natural dentition, conventional complete denture, and the parafunctional habit were applied to the models. The peri-implant strain in each strain gauge was recorded. Results: Least peri-implant strains (67 microstrains) were observed when forces simulating conventional complete dentures were applied on the models and the highest peri-implant strains (9091 microstrains) were observed when forces simulating parafunctional habit were applied. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis was performed to compare the mean deformation scores between different materials at 50 N load. The level of significance [P-value] was set at P < 0.05. Tests showed significant differences between zero mm and the other types in all the different materials, and also between 1.5 x AP and 2.5 x AP for Zirconia and Peek material at P = 0.02 & P = .008, respectively. The results showed that the type of framework material, cantilever length, and occlusal forces from the opposing arch influence the peri-implant strain in the bone in all-on-four implant-supported prostheses. Conclusion: Rehabilitation of a single, completely edentulous arch with implant-supported prostheses should consider the situation of the opposing arch. The choice of framework material, as well as the cantilever length, should be altered based on the forces from the opposing arch.

Comparison of 4‐ or 6‐implant supported immediate full‐arch fixed prostheses: A retrospective cohort study of 217 patients followed up for 3–13 years

“…Shetty and colleagues 58 demonstrated that natural teeth were sensitive to even a very small occlusal force and could recognize the discrimination of its direction and magnitude, wherein the enamel‐dentine‐pulp complex and the mechanoreceptors on the periodontal ligament of the natural teeth formed the peripheral feedback system, which the implants lacked. The overload on the implants was usually not easily and timely perceived, thus becoming a common risk factor for implant's MBL 59 …”

Less Is More: A Case Report on All-on-4 Prosthesis

“…The All-on-4 concept originated in 1999, with Mattsson and colleagues treating severely resorbed edentulous maxillae by placing four to six implants in the premaxilla to avoid sinus augmentation [ 13 ]. In challenging clinical circumstances involving inadequate bone volume and the need for bone grafting in fully edentulous patients, the use of angled implants in the All-on-4 approach provides a viable treatment option, offering excellent long-term results and better load distribution [ 14 , 15 ].…”

Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Stresses Induced Around Inclined Implants with Different Framework Materials in Maxillary Complete Arch Prostheses (All on 4)

“…The prosthetic materials may play an important role in the stresses induced at implant/bone interface [30,31] .…”