Keywords
Finite element analysis
Mouth rehabilitation
Prosthodontics
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: To analyze the stress distribution at the peri-implant bone tissue of mandible in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation using a different number of implants as support. Methods: Three-dimensional finite element models of full-arch prosthesis with 3, 4 and 5 implants and those respective mandibular bone, screws and structure were built. ANSYS Workbench software was used to analyze the maximum and minimum principal stresses (quantitative analysis) and modified von Mises stress (qualitative analysis) in peri-implant bone tissue after vertical and oblique forces (100N) applied to the structure at the cantilever site (region of the first molars). Results: The peak of tensile stress values were at the bone tissue around to the distal implant in all models. The model with 3 implants presented the maximum principal stress, in the surrounding bone tissue, higher (~14%) than the other models. The difference of maximum principal stress for model with 4 and 5 implants was not relevant (~1%). The first medial implant of the model with 5 implants presented the lower (17%) stress values in bone than model with 3 implants. It was also not different from model with 4 implants. Conclusion: Three regular implants might present a slight higher chance of failure than rehabilitations with four or five implants. The use of four implants showed to be an adequate alternative to the use of classical five implants.
References
Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Pera F, Menini M, Mossolov A, Drago C, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of load transmission using different implant inclinations and cantilever lengths. Int J Prosthodont. 2008 Nov-Dec;21(6):539-42.
Bhatavadekar NB, Gharpure AS, Balasubramanium N, Scheyer ET. In vitro surface testing methods for dental implants-interpretation and clinical relevance: a review. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2020 Mar;41(3):e1-e9.
Bicalho AA, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Effect of occlusal loading and mechanical properties of resin composite on stress generated in posterior restorations. Am J Dent. 2014 Jun;27(3):129-33.
Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, et al. Brånemark Novum: a new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(1):2-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00086.x.
Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Jul-Aug;22(4):639-44.
Crespi R, Vinci R, Capparé P, Romanos GE, Gherlone E. A clinical study of edentulous patients rehabilitated according to the “all on four” immediate function protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Mar-Apr;27(2):428-34.
De Almeida EO, Rocha EP, Freitas AC, Freitas MM. Finite element stress analysis of edentulous mandibles with different bone types supporting multiple-implant superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(6):1108-14.
Deslis A, Hasan I, Bourauel C, Bayer S, Stark H, Keilig L. Numerical investigations of the loading behaviour of a prefabricated non-rigid bar system. Ann Anat. 2012 Nov;194(6):538-44. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2012.04.004.
Dos Santos MB, Caldas RA, Zen BM, Bacchi A, Correr-Sobrinho L. Adaptation of overdenture-bars casted in different metals and their influence on the stress distribution: a laboratory and 3D FEA. J Biomech. 2015 Jan;48(1):8-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.015.
Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000 Oct;11(5):465-75. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011005465.x.
Ferreira MB, Barão VA, Delben JA, Faverani LP, Hipólito AC, Assunção WG. Non-linear 3D finite element analysis of full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2014 May;38:306-14. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.02.021.
Hatano N, Yamaguchi M, Yaita T, Ishibashi T, Sennerby L. New approach for immediate prosthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with three implants: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Nov;22(11):1265-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02101.x.
Himmlová L, Dostálová T, Kácovský A, Konvicková S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Jan;91(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008.
Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Mar;142(3):310-20. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0170.
Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey N. Skeletal tissue mechanics. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1998.
Mendonca DB, Prado MM, Mendes FA, Borges TF, Mendonça G, Prado CJ, et al. Comparison of masticatory function between subjects with three types of dentition. Int J Prosthodont. 2009 Jul-Aug;22(4):399-404.
Naconecy MM, Geremia T, Cervieri A, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RS. Effect of the number of abutments on biomechanics of Branemark prosthesis with straight and tilted distal implants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Mar-Apr;18(2):178-85. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000200013.
Patzelt SB, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Dec;16(6):836-55. doi: 10.1111/cid.12068.
Rivaldo EG, Montagner A, Nary H, da Fontoura Frasca LC, Brånemark PI. Assessment of rehabilitation in edentulous patients treated with an immediately loaded complete fixed mandibular prosthesis supported by three implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):695-702.
Silva-Neto JP, Pimentel MJ, Neves FD, Consani RL, Santos MB. Stress analysis of different configurations of 3 implants to support a fixed prosthesis in an edentulous jaw. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28:67-73. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242013005000028.
Soto-Penaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Mar 1;9(3):e474-88. doi: 10.4317/jced.53613.
Spazzin AO, Costa AR, Correr AB, Consani RL, Correr-Sobrinho L, dos Santos MB. Effect of bar cross-section geometry on stress distribution in overdenture-retaining system simulating horizontal misfit and bone loss. J Biomech. 2013 Aug 9;46(12):2039-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.05.025.
Taddei F, Cristofolini L, Martelli S, Gill HS, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: An in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech. 2006;39(13):2457-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.07.018.
Teixeira MF, Ramalho SA, de Mattias Sartori IA, Lehmann RB. Finite element analysis of 2 immediate loading systems in edentulous mandible: rigid and semirigid splinting of implants. Implant Dent. 2010 Feb;19(1):39-49. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181cc7ffc.
Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Effect of implant number and height on the biomechanics of full arch prosthesis. Braz J Oral Sci. 2018;17:e18222. doi: 10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8653837.
Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2011 Apr;38(4):286-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02170.x.
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
