“Simpli5y” a noval concept for fixed rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular edentulous arches: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial, supported by a numerical analysis

Chowdhary, Ramesh; Kumararama, Sindhu Sudhakar

doi:10.1111/cid.12630

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As seen on the stress distribution maps, noted stress values were peak values denoted at a specific position, however, in reality, these maximum stresses occur as a load transmitted at the bone-implant interface, not at a single point [47]. Although comparisons may be hindered by the different model characteristics set by researchers, our results have yielded similar tensile and compressive values in the same order to other previously published reports assessing stresses on mandibular bone tissue [4,21,36,37,46,[48][49][50]. The mandibular bone adapts to its loading and responds to stresses by bone formation or resorption, i.e., neither unloaded nor overloaded areas are desirable due to long-term consequences [51].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Biomechanical Effects of Different Load Cases with an Implant-Supported Full Bridge on Four Implants in an Edentulous Mandible: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis (3D-FEA)

Szabó,

Matusovits,

Slyteen

et al. 2023

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The long-term success and predictability of implant-supported restorations largely depends on the biomechanical forces (stresses) acting on implants and the surrounding alveolar bone in the mandible. The aim of our study was to investigate the biomechanical behavior of an edentulous mandible with an implant-supported full bridge on four implants under simulated masticatory forces, in the context of different loading schemes, using a three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). A patient-specific 3D finite element model was constructed using pre- and post-implantation computer tomography (CT) images of a patient undergoing implant treatment. Simplified masticatory forces set at 300 N were exerted vertically on the denture in four different simulated load cases (LC1–LC4). Two sets of simulations for different implants and denture materials (S1: titanium and titanium; S2: titanium and cobalt-chromium, respectively) were made. Stress outputs were taken as maximum (Pmax) and minimum principal stress (Pmin) and equivalent stress (Peqv) values. The highest peak Pmax values were observed for LC2 (where the modelled masticatory force excluded the cantilevers of the denture extending behind the terminal implants), both regarding the cortical bone (S1 Pmax: 89.57 MPa, S2 Pmax: 102.98 MPa) and trabecular bone (S1 Pmax: 3.03 MPa, S2 Pmax: 2.62 MPa). Overall, LC1—where masticatory forces covered the entire mesio−distal surface of the denture, including the cantilever—was the most advantageous. Peak Pmax values in the cortical bone and the trabecular bone were 14.97–15.87% and 87.96–94.54% higher in the case of S2, respectively. To ensure the long-term maintenance and longevity of treatment for implant-supported restorations in the mandible, efforts to establish the stresses of the surrounding bone in the physiological range, with the most even stress distribution possible, have paramount importance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Biomechanical Effects of Different Load Cases with an Implant-Supported Full Bridge on Four Implants in an Edentulous Mandible: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis (3D-FEA)

Szabó,

Matusovits,

Slyteen

et al. 2023

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 lists the general information for the selected studies 1–9,33–36 . Table 2 displays the reasons for rejecting those 3 potential articles 37–39 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Fixed Mandibular 3‐Implant Retained Prosthesis Safe and Predicable for Full‐Arch Mandibular Prostheses? A Systematic Review

Brandão

Filho

Vedovato

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate implant and prosthetic survival rates of full‐arch rehabilitations retained by three implants in patients with edentulous mandibles. Materials and Methods This systematic review was developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement. The focused question was: Are fixed mandibular 3‐implant retained prostheses safe and predicable for full‐arch mandibular prostheses? The Medline/PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were used to conduct the systematic search for clinical trials on fixed mandibular 3‐implant retained prostheses published between 1999 and 2020. Only English‐language studies that presented information on implant and prosthetic survival were included. Results A total of 302 studies were identified, of which 13 addressed the inclusion criteria. Additionally, 574 participants were included in these studies. As reported, 73 (4.57%) of 1596 implants failed, with a survival rate of 95.43%. In addition, the mean survival rate of the presented prostheses was 89.66%. The mean marginal bone loss was 1.09 mm. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present review, implant and prosthetic survival rates of fixed mandibular 3‐implant retained prostheses were similar to those of full‐arch mandibular prostheses retained by four or more implants. Further research exploring the topic is necessary.

show abstract

“…For completely edentulous patients, who is contraindicated for fixed prosthesis with implant because of anatomical limitations and poor posterior bone quality, we can select them for the current study. (12) The attachment type selection depends on a lot of factors such as alveolar bone height and width, the space between upper and lower jaw, retention degree required, patient's financial state, patient's expectation and clinician preference. The minimum inter-arch space available for bar and telescopic attachment is 13-14 mm, ball attachment is 10-12 mm, locator and magnet attachment is 8.5mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A CBCT evaluation of marginal bone loss in two vs. four Implants-bar supported mandibular overdenture: Randomized Clinical Trials

Ali

AbuElmagd

Gomaa

2022

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The aim was to compare the effect of using different number of implants (two and four implants) on marginal bone loss around implant in implant -bar supported mandibular overdenture.Material and methods: Twelve edentulous patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I received two implants-bar supported overdenture while group II received 4 Implantsbar supported overdenture. Fixtures were surgically inserted with its top level 0.5mm below the crestal bone level. Each patient was recalled two months after implant insertion for superstructure placement. Crestal bone loss around the implants were measured on CBCT images taken at time of final prosthesis pick-up, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after overdenture pickup. Repeatedmeasure ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test was used to compare between the two groups at the different time points.Results: There was a significant main effect of time on bone resorption (p<0.001). however, there was no significant main effect of group on bone resorption (p= 0.132). There was no significant interaction between time and group. Multiple comparisons showed a significant difference between the baseline and 12 month time point in each group (p=0.006 and p=0.041, respectively). Also, there was a significant difference in bone resorption between the two groups at 12 month time point (p=0.044). Conclusion:Four implants-bar supported overdenture provided better preservation of marginal bone than two implants-bar supported overdenture. Therefore, its recommended for clinicians to consider the design of four implants-bar supported overdenture specially when the bone of jaw is compromised.

show abstract

“Simpli5y” a noval concept for fixed rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular edentulous arches: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial, supported by a numerical analysis

Abstract: These results, suggest that in both delayed loading and immediate loading protocol that cross arch prostheses can be successfully supported by 3 and 2 implants in maxillary and mandibular arch respectively-"Simpli5y" concept of full mouth restoration.

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Biomechanical Effects of Different Load Cases with an Implant-Supported Full Bridge on Four Implants in an Edentulous Mandible: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis (3D-FEA)

Biomechanical Effects of Different Load Cases with an Implant-Supported Full Bridge on Four Implants in an Edentulous Mandible: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis (3D-FEA)

Is the Fixed Mandibular 3‐Implant Retained Prosthesis Safe and Predicable for Full‐Arch Mandibular Prostheses? A Systematic Review

A CBCT evaluation of marginal bone loss in two vs. four Implants-bar supported mandibular overdenture: Randomized Clinical Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About