Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: To compare the reliability between photoelastic and finite element (FE) analyses by evaluating the effect of different marginal misfit levels on the stresses generated on two different implant-supported systems using conventional and short implants. Methods: Two photoelastic models were obtained: model C with two conventional implants (4.1×11 mm); and model S with a conventional and a short implant (5×6 mm). Three-unit CoCr frameworks were fabricated simulating a superior first pre-molar (P) to first molar (M) fixed dental prosthesis. Different levels of misfit (µm) were selected based on the misfit average of 10 frameworks obtained by the single-screw test protocol: low (<20), medium (>20 and <40) and high (>40). Stress levels and distribution were measured by photoelastic analysis. A similar situation of the in vitro assay was designed and simulated by the in silico analysis. Maximum and minimum principal strain were recorded numerically and color-coded for the models. Von Mises Stress was obtained for the metallic components. Results: Photoelasticity and FE analyses showed similar tendency where the increase of misfit generates higher stress levels despite of the implant design. The short implant showed lower von Mises stress values; however, it presented stresses around its full length for the in vitro and in silico analysis. Also, model S showed higher µstrain values for all simulated misfit levels. The type of implant did not affect the stresses around pillar P. Conclusions: Photoelasticity and FEA are reliable methodologies presenting similarity for the investigation of the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported rehabilitations.References
Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Dec;7(4):329-36.
Pesqueira AA, Goiato MC, Gennari Filho H, Monteiro DR, Santos DM, Haddad MF, et al. Use of stress analysis methods to evaluate the biomechanics of oral rehabilitation with implants. J J Oral Implantol. 2014 Apr;40(2):217-28. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00066.
Rodrigues SA, Presotto AGC, Barão VAR, Consani RLX, Nóbilo MAA, Mesquita MF. The role of welding techniques in the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017 Sep 1;78:435-442. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.04.090.
Presotto AGC, Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF, Barão VA. Marginal fit and photoelastic stress analysis of CAD-CAM and overcast 3-unit implant-supported frameworks. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar;117(3):373-379. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.011.
Spazzin AO, Henriques GEP, de Arruda Nóbilo MA, Consani RL, Correr-Sobrinho L, Mesquita MF. Influence of prosthetic screw material on joint stability in passive and non-passive implant-supported dentures. Open Dent J. 2009 Dec 30;3:245-9. doi: 10.2174/1874210600903010245.
Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, Kirsch A. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Mar-Apr;15(2):209-18.
Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991 Fall;6(3):270-6.
Hasan I, Bourauel C, Mundt T, Heinemann F. Biomechanics and load resistance of short dental implants: a review of the literature. ISRN Dent. 2013 May 8;2013:424592. doi: 10.1155/2013/424592.
Chang SH, Lin CL, Lin YS, Hsue SS, Huang SR. Biomechanical comparison of a single short and wide implant with monocortical or bicortical engagement in the atrophic posterior maxilla and a long implant in the augmented sinus. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):e102-11.
Şeker E, Ulusoy M, Ozan O, Doğan DÖ, Seker BK. Biomechanical effects of different fixed partial denture designs planned on bicortically anchored short, graft-supported long, or 45-degree–inclined long implants in the posterior maxilla: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jan-Feb;29(1):e1-9. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3264.
Atieh M a, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1323-31.
Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Jun;7(2):143-52.
Santiago Junior JF1, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS. Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: A 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2013 Dec 1;33(8):4700-14. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.07.027.
Anami LC, da Costa Lima JM, Takahashi FE, Neisser MP, Noritomi PY, Bottino MA. stress distribution around osseointegrated implants with different internal-cone connections: photoelastic and finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2015 Apr;41(2):155-62. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00260.
Kim S, Kim S, Choi H, Woo D, Park YB, Shim JS, et al. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of short dental implants in the posterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Mar-Apr;29(2):e155-64. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3210.
Turcio KHL, Goiato MC, Gennari Filho H, dos Santos DM. Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution in oral rehabilitation. J Craniofac Surg. 2009 Mar;20(2):471-4. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31819b9926.
Pereira IP, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF, Nóbilo MA. Photoelastic analysis of stresses transmitted by complete dentures lined with hard or soft liners. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015 Oct;55:181-6. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.05.020.
Bhering CLB, Bhering, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RL, Barão VA. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: A prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Dec 1;69:715-25. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.059.
Byrne D, Jacobs S, O’Connell B, Houston F, Claffey N. Preloads generated with repeated tightening in three types of screws used in dental implant assemblies. J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;15(3):164-71.
Monje A, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, García-Nogales A, Fu JH, Wang HL. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Oct;25(10):1119-24. doi: 10.1111/clr.12236.
Hasan I, Heinemann F, Aitlahrach M, Bourauel C. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implant. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2010 Dec;55(6):341-50. doi: 10.1515/BMT.2010.049.
Pellizzer EP, de Mello CC, Santiago Junior JF, de Souza Batista VE, de Faria Almeida DA, Verri FR. Analysis of the biomechanical behavior of short implants: The photo-elasticity method. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015 Oct;55:187-92. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.05.024.
Boyer R, Collings EW, Welsch G. Materials properties handbook: titanium alloys. ASM Int Mater Park OH; 1994.
Spazzin AO, Abreu RT, Noritomi PY, Consani RL, Mesquita MF. Evaluation of stress distribution in overdenture-retaining bar with different levels of vertical misfit. J Prosthodont. 2011 Jun;20(4):280-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00708.x.
Archangelo CM, Rocha EP, Pereira JA, Martin Junior M, Anchieta RB, Freitas Júnior AC. Periodontal ligament influence on the stress distribution in a removable partial denture supported by implant: a finite element analysis. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012 May-Jun;20(3):362-8.
The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences uses the Creative Commons license (CC), thus preserving the integrity of the articles in an open access environment.
Downloads
