International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis to Evaluate the Stress Distribution in Bone with Different Attachment Systems in an Implant-supported Mandibular Overdenture

Rajvi Nahar, Kirti J Shrivastava, Swapnil Parlani, Shreyans Damade, Pushkar Dwivedi, Nimit Jain

Keywords : Ball attachments, Finite element analysis, Implant-supported overdenture, Locator attachments, Polyetheretherketone

Citation Information : Nahar R, Shrivastava KJ, Parlani S, Damade S, Dwivedi P, Jain N. A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis to Evaluate the Stress Distribution in Bone with Different Attachment Systems in an Implant-supported Mandibular Overdenture. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (4):167-173.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1382

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of this finite element analysis (FEA) was to evaluate and compare stresses generated in bone, with carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) and titanium ball and locator attachments, in CFR-PEEK and titanium implant-supported mandibular overdenture. Materials and methods: In this FEA study, two mandibular models were formed using three-dimensional (3D) scans. One model represented a completely edentulous mandible with two implants placed in the interforaminal region and loaded with an overdenture using ball attachment systems. Similarly, the second model consisted of locator attachment systems. Each model was divided into four subgroups according to the material (CFR-PEEK and titanium) used for the implant and attachment system. A 100 N vertical load and a 100 N oblique load (20° oblique) were applied in the canine region on the overdenture. The von Mises stresses and maximum and minimum principal stresses were analyzed using the analysis of systems software. Results: In ball attachment groups, a combination of CFR-PEEK implant and attachment showed the least stresses in bone (1.977 and 1.090 GPa) and implants (0.028 and 0.005 GPa) under vertical and oblique loading, respectively. Similarly, in locator attachment groups, combination of CFR-PEEK implant and attachment showed least stresses in bone (0.475 and 0.306 GPa) and implants (0.183 and 0.105 GPa) under vertical and oblique loading, respectively. When ball and locator attachment were compared, the minimum stresses in bone and implant were seen in the CFR-PEEK implant and CFR-PEEK locator attachment system. Conclusion: The use of locator attachment systems is better than the ball attachment system, as it increases the durability of the overdenture by decreasing the stresses in bone and implant systems. CFR-PEEK implant along with CFR-PEEK attachments can be used in overdenture cases, as it decreases the stresses in surrounding bone compared to titanium implant and attachments.

PDF Share
  1. Dudic A, Mericske-Stern R. Retention mechanisms and prosthetic complications of implant-supported mandibular overdentures: long-term results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4(4):212–219. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00173.x
  2. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant overdentures: the Toronto study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(4):425–433. PMID: 15382778
  3. Rismanchian M, Bajoghli F, Eblaghian G, et al. Stress analysis of ball and Locator attachments and bone in overdenture supported by tissue level and bone level implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(10):952–957. DOI: 10.2047/jioh-08-10-03
  4. El-Anwar MI, Yousief SA, Soliman TA, et al. A finite element study on stress distribution of two different attachment designs under implant supported overdenture. Saudi Dent J 2015;27(4):201–207. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2015.03.001
  5. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17(4):601–602. PMID: 12164236
  6. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J 2009;207(4):185–186. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728
  7. Skinner HB. Composite technology for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;235:224–236. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-198810000-00022
  8. Sarot JR, Contar CM, Cruz AC, et al. Evaluation of stress distribution in CFR-PEEK dental implants by the three-dimensional finite element method. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2010;21(7):2079–2085. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-010-4084-7
  9. Abdelhamid AM, Assaad NK, Neena AF. Three dimensional finite element analysis to evaluate stress distribution around implant retained mandibular overdenture using two different attachment systems. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2015;2(5):171–175. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.2015.02.00065
  10. Khurana N, Rodrigues S, Shenoy S, et al. A comparative evaluation of stress distribution with two attachment systems of varying heights in a mandibular implant-supported overdenture: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e795–e805. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12966
  11. Eltaftazani I, Moubarak A, El-Anwar M. Locator attachment versus ball attachment: 3-dimensional finite element study. Egypt Dent J 2011;57(2):73–85.
  12. Ozan O, Ramoglu S. Effect of implant height differences on different attachment types and peri-implant bone in mandibular two-implant overdentures: 3D finite element study. J Oral Implantol 2015;41(3):e50–e59. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00239
  13. Elsyad MA, Errabati HM, Mustafa AZ. Mandibular denture base deformation with locator and ball attachments of implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthodont 2016;25(8):656–664. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12356
  14. El-Anwar MI, El-Taftazany EA, Hamed HA, et al. Influence of number of implants and attachment type on stress distribution in mandibular implant-retained overdentures: finite element analysis. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2017;5(2):244–249. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2017.047
  15. Celik G, Uludag B. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97(4):229–235. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.02.006
  16. Jain S, Jain D, Kumar A. Comparative evaluation of stress in canine retained mandibular overdentures with three attachment designs – a 3D finite element analysis. JIDA 2011;5:791–793.
  17. Kenney R, Richards MW. Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(5):559–564. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70032-0
  18. Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84(3):327–334. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.109378
  19. Barao VA, Assuncao WG, Tabata LF, et al. Effect of different mucosa thickness and resiliency on stress distribution of implant-retained overdentures-2D FEA. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2008;92(2):213–223. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.07.009
  20. Daas M, Dubois G, Bonnet AS, et al. A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations. Med Eng Phys 2008;30(2):218–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2007.02.005
  21. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH. A three-dimensional, finite element analysis of bone around dental implants in an edentulous human mandible. Arch Oral Biol 1993;38(6):491–496. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(93)90185-o
  22. Rahmitasari F, Ishida Y, Kurahashi K, et al. PEEK with reinforced materials and modifications for dental implant applications. Dent J (Basel) 2017;5(4):35. DOI: 10.3390/dj5040035
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.