Photoelastic and finite element stress analysis reliability for implant-supported system stress investigation

Authors

  • Anna Gabriella Camacho Presotto University of Campinas
  • Cláudia Lopes Brilhante Bhering Federal University of Minas Gerais
  • Ricardo Armini Caldas University of Campinas
  • Rafael Leonardo Xediek Consani University of Campinas
  • Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão University of Campinas
  • Marcelo Ferraz Mesquita University of Campinas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8652941

Keywords:

Biomechanical Phenomena. Dental Implants. Optical Phenomena. Finite Element Analysis.

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Anna Gabriella Camacho Presotto, University of Campinas

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Cláudia Lopes Brilhante Bhering, Federal University of Minas Gerais

Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Minas Gerais, Brazil

Ricardo Armini Caldas, University of Campinas

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Rafael Leonardo Xediek Consani, University of Campinas

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão, University of Campinas

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Marcelo Ferraz Mesquita, University of Campinas

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil

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.

Downloads

Published

2018-07-16

How to Cite

1.
Presotto AGC, Bhering CLB, Caldas RA, Consani RLX, Barão VAR, Mesquita MF. Photoelastic and finite element stress analysis reliability for implant-supported system stress investigation. Braz. J. Oral Sci. [Internet]. 2018 Jul. 16 [cited 2022 Oct. 5];17:e181097. Available from: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8652941

Most read articles by the same author(s)