International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Stresses Generated in Completely Edentulous and Partially Edentulous Arch Rehabilitated with Four Implants: A Comparative 3D FEA Study

Suneetha Rao, Harvinder Singh, K Ashok, MU Swetha, Shruti Mishra Sarkar, S Jyothi

Keywords : All on four concept, Angulated implant, Finite element analysis, Straight dental implant

Citation Information : Rao S, Singh H, Ashok K, Swetha M, Sarkar SM, Jyothi S. Stresses Generated in Completely Edentulous and Partially Edentulous Arch Rehabilitated with Four Implants: A Comparative 3D FEA Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021; 11 (4):168-172.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1347

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 04-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims and objectives: The present study is based on a thesis submitted to the Dentistryimplants in anterior region and tilted implants in the posterior region with angulation of 30 degrees. To evaluate the stresses generated on bone, implants and superstructures in partially edentulous model (Kennedy class 1) using anterior straight implants and posterior tilted implants with angulation of 30 degrees. Materials and methods: In the present study two maxillary FE (finite element) models were fabricated using CT scans. One model represented completely edentulous situation and other one represented partially edentulous Kennedy class 1 situation. Both the models had anterior straight implants and posterior tilted implants of 30 degrees angulation. These models were subjected to axial loading of 200N forces and the numerical values of the stresses generated were calculated. Results: The stresses generated in the complete denture model (M1) was 118 MPa and in the partial model (M2) was 60.95 MPa. The stresses on M1 was 21.4 MPa and in M2 it was 18.4MP at the cortical bone. Conclusion: Overall stresses generated on the completely edentulous models were found to be more than the stresses generated on the partially edentulous models. Therefore, it is better to retain remaining natural teeth and give a fixed partial denture supported by an anterior straight implant and posterior tilted implant than extracting and giving implant supported complete denture.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, et al. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106(3):527–551. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-6-.x
  2. Cricchio G, Lundgren S. Donor site morbidity in two different approaches to anterior iliac crest bone harvesting. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(3):161–169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00198.x
  3. Nkenke E, Schultze-Mosgau S, Radespiel-Troger M, et al. Morbidity of harvesting of chin grafts: a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(5):495–502. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120510.x
  4. Clavero J, Lundgren S. Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(3):154–160. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00197.x
  5. Fortin Y, Sullivan RM, Rangert BR. The Marius implant bridge: surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation for the completely edentulous upper jaw with moderate to severe resorption: a 5-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4(2):69–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00155.x
  6. Krekmanov L. Placement of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants in patients with severe bone deficiency: a clinical report of procedure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(5):722–730.
  7. Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Simplified treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla via immediate/early function and tilted implants: a prospective 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(1):S1–S12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00069.x
  8. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with branemark system implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(1):2–9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x
  9. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with branemark system implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1- year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(1):S88–S94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00080.x
  10. Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3(1):39–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00127.x
  11. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, et al. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(3):405–414.
  12. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49(6):843–848. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-x
  13. Mattsson T, Kondell PA, Gynther GW, et al. Implant treatment without bone grafting in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57(3):281–287.
  14. Aparicio C, Arevalo X, Ouazzani W, et al. Retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of tilted implants used in the treatment of the severely resorbed edentulous maxilla. Applied Osseo Res 2002;3:17–21.
  15. Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Menini M, et al. The influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in maxillary implant supported fixed dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2010;105(1):5–13. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60182-5
  16. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, eds. Tissue-integrated pros-theses: Osseointegration in clinical den-tistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1985:199-209.
  17. Silva GC, Mendonça JA, Lopes LR, et al. Stress patterns on implants in prostheses supported by four or six implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25(2):239–246. PMID: 20369081.
  18. Christel P, Meunier A, Heller M, et al. Mechanical properties and short-term in-vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23(1):45–61. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820230105
  19. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4(3):241–247. PMID: 2700747.
  20. Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Menini M, et al. The influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in maxillary implant-supported fixed dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105(1):5–13. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60182-5
  21. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. A comparison of implant/prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(5):421–433. PMID: 8595100.
  22. Canay S, Hersek N, Akpinar I, et al. Comparison of stress distribution around vertical and angled implants with finite-element analysis. Quintessence Int 1996;27(9):591–598. PMID: 9180415.
  23. Cağlar A, Aydin C, Ozen J, et al. Effects of mesiodistal inclination of implants on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21(1):36–44. PMID: 16519180.
  24. Naini RB, Nokar S, Borghei H, et al. Tilted or parallel implant placement in the completely edentulous mandible? A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(4):776–781. PMID: 21841987.
  25. Baggi L, Pastore S, Girolamo MD, et al. Implant-bone load transfer mechanisms in complete-arch prostheses supported by four implants: a three-dimensional finite element approach. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109(1):9–21. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60004-9. PMID: 23328192.
  26. Ueda C, Markarian RA, Sendyk CL, et al. Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution on parallel and angled implants after installation of fixed prostheses. Braz Oral Res 2004;18(1):45–52. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242004000100009
  27. Watanabe F, Hata Y, Komatsu S, et al. Finite element analysis of the influence of implant inclination, loading position, and load direction on stress distribution. Odontology 2003;91(1):31–36. DOI:10.1007/s10266-003-0029-7
  28. Begg T, Geerts GA, Gryzagoridis J. Stress patterns around distal angled implants in the all-on-four concept configuration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(4):663–671. PMID: 19885406.
  29. Sevimay M, Usumez A, Eskitascioglu G. The influence of various occlusal materials on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: a three-dimensional finite-element study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;73(1):140–147. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30191
  30. Benzing UR, Gall H, Weber H. Biomechanical aspects of two different implant-prosthetic concepts for edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10(2):188–198. PMID: 7744438.
  31. Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(6):633–640. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90442-4
  32. Bassit R, Lindström H, Rangert B. In vivo registration of force development with ceramic and acrylic resin occlusal materials on implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17(1):17–23. PMID: 11858570.
  33. Cibirka RM, Razzoog ME, Lang BR, et al. Determining the force absorption quotient for restorative materials used in implant occlusal surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(3):361-364. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90247-8/jrn>
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.