We have located links that may give you full text access.
Implant-supported overdentures with different clinical configurations: Mechanical resistance using a numerical approach.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2019 March
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported overdentures (IODs) are a treatment option for patients with complete edentulism. However, this treatment increases the possibilities of peri-implant complications, characterized by inflammation or partial loss of surrounding hard and soft tissues.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of different bar-IOD designs under different clinical configurations by comparing the stress and strain distribution on the bone during secondary stabilization.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A finite element model of the mandible representing a patient with complete edentulism was developed. Different designs of bar-IODs were modeled and compared. The parameters studied were the material properties (cobalt-chromium, zirconium dioxide, titanium grade 5, and titanium grade 4), diameter and bar-IOD cross-sectional shape, tilt of the posterior implants (30 degrees), presence of a distal extension cantilever in the bar-IODs (12 mm), and number of implants (4 or 6). Two different mastication loading conditions were analyzed. One- and 2-way ANOVAs and the Tukey honestly significant differences post hoc test (α=.05) were used to determine the significant von Mises stress and strain values in the bone.
RESULTS: The 4 materials tested in the bar-IOD did not have a significant mechanical effect on the bone (P<.05). A smaller diameter and structure of the bar-IOD led to significantly higher bone stress (P<.001). A distal extension cantilever led to an increased stress concentration (model M1 versus model M3: P<.001), which reached 50% in the event of tilting of the posterior implants (model M2 versus model M4: P<.001). Tilting of the posterior implants alone, without extension, had a nonsignificant effect (model M3 versus model M4: P=.999). Model M5 supported with 6 implants reduces the stress transferred to the bone compared with model M3 supported with 4 implants (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Distal extensions in bar-IODs, the tilt of the posterior implants, and the low amount of material in the cross-sectional area in the bar-IOD were the most influential parameters on the mechanical resistance of dental implants in the mandibular bone.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of different bar-IOD designs under different clinical configurations by comparing the stress and strain distribution on the bone during secondary stabilization.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A finite element model of the mandible representing a patient with complete edentulism was developed. Different designs of bar-IODs were modeled and compared. The parameters studied were the material properties (cobalt-chromium, zirconium dioxide, titanium grade 5, and titanium grade 4), diameter and bar-IOD cross-sectional shape, tilt of the posterior implants (30 degrees), presence of a distal extension cantilever in the bar-IODs (12 mm), and number of implants (4 or 6). Two different mastication loading conditions were analyzed. One- and 2-way ANOVAs and the Tukey honestly significant differences post hoc test (α=.05) were used to determine the significant von Mises stress and strain values in the bone.
RESULTS: The 4 materials tested in the bar-IOD did not have a significant mechanical effect on the bone (P<.05). A smaller diameter and structure of the bar-IOD led to significantly higher bone stress (P<.001). A distal extension cantilever led to an increased stress concentration (model M1 versus model M3: P<.001), which reached 50% in the event of tilting of the posterior implants (model M2 versus model M4: P<.001). Tilting of the posterior implants alone, without extension, had a nonsignificant effect (model M3 versus model M4: P=.999). Model M5 supported with 6 implants reduces the stress transferred to the bone compared with model M3 supported with 4 implants (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Distal extensions in bar-IODs, the tilt of the posterior implants, and the low amount of material in the cross-sectional area in the bar-IOD were the most influential parameters on the mechanical resistance of dental implants in the mandibular bone.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app