Evaluation of the Biomechanical Response, for the Comparison of Single vs Double Implants Replacing the Mandibular First Molar via a Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis
Keywords :
FEM, Implants, Mandibular first molar, Stress analysis
Citation Information :
Parasrampuria N, Baig N, Yeshwante B, Jadhav V. Evaluation of the Biomechanical Response, for the Comparison of Single vs Double Implants Replacing the Mandibular First Molar via a Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021; 11 (1):27-32.
Aims and objectives: The study was conducted to evaluate the biomechanical response of the bone, for the comparison of single vs double implants replacing the mandibular first molar via a three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).
Materials and methods: Three-dimensional FEA model was generated to compare the induced displacements and stresses as a result of various loading conditions on a mandibular first molar crown supported by a regular 4.2-mm–diameter implant and two 3.5 mm–diameter implants. For each implant design, the loading process 70 N, on three locations (vertical to the long axis) was done and generated von Mises equivalent stress, and resultant displacements were recorded.
Results: For single implant design, the von Mises stress was found to be 173.61 MPa at the distobuccal cusp tip, whereas for Double-implants (3.5 mm-implants), the maximum stress of 145.12 MPa was found at the distobuccal cusp tip.
Conclusion: The use of double-diameter implants may be mechanically advantageous in restoring single molars, as they enhance the mechanical properties of the implant system through the increased surface area, stronger resistance to component fracture, increased abutment stability, and enhanced emergence profile.
Tatum OH. The Omni implant system. Proceedings of the Alabama Implant Congress, Birmingham, Ala, May 1988.
Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockier B, et al. A 15 year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1981;10(6):387–416. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4.
van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Boienden C. The applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study of 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(3):272–281.
Thomas J, Wolfinger GJ. Two-implant-supported single molar replacement: interdental space requirements and comparison to alternative options. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1997;17:427–435.
Terrence J, Griffin DMD, Wai S. The use of short, wide implants in posterior areas with reduced bone height: a retrospective investigation. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(2):139–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.010.
Geramy A, Morgano SM. Finite element analysis of three designs of an implant-supported molar crown. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(5):434–440. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.011.
Seong W-J, Korioth TW, Hodges JS. Experimentally induced abutment strains in three types of single-molar implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84(3):318–326. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.109124.
Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Girolamo MD, et al. Influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100(6):422–431. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60259-0.
Assunção WG, Barão VAR, Gomes EA, et al. FEA in Dentistry: A Useful Tool to Investigate the Biomechanical Behavior of Implant Supported Prosthesis, Finite Element Analysis - From Biomedical Applications to Industrial Developments. Europe: Dr David Moratal (Ed.); 2012.
Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kilicxarslan MA, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(3):227–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.019.
Srirekha A, Bashetty K. Infinite to finite: an overview of finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(3):425–432. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.70813.
Balshi TJ, Hernandez RE, Claudia M, et al. A Comparative study of one implant versus two replacing a single molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(3):372–378.
Bedi RS, Verma P, Goel P, et al. Radiographic comparison of the two standardized implants with single wide diameter implant for replacement of one mandibular molar. Asian J Oral Health All Sci 2011;1:4–8.
Petropoulos VC, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. Complications of mandibular molar replacement with a single implant: a case report. J Can Dent Assoc 2004;70(4):238–242.
Bayrak A, Yaramanoğlu P, Kılıçarslan MA, et al. Biomechanical Comparison of a new triple cylindrical implant design and a conventional cylindrical implant design on the mandible by three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35(2):257–264. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7760.
de Carvalho EB, Herbst PE, Faria ACL, et al. Strain transfer behavior of different planning options for mandibular single-molar replacement. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(2):250–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.017.
Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74(1):51–55. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80229-x.
Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, et al. A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset implant placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27(1):15–21. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00475.x.
Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, et al. Biomechanical effects of double or wide effects of double or wide implants for single molar replacement in the posterior mandibular region. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27(10):842–845. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00598.x.
