The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF OVERDENTURE STABILITY AND STRESS DISTRIBUTION ON MANDIBULAR IMPLANT-RETAINED OVERDENTURE

하악 임플랜트 유지형 피개의치의 안정성과 하악골 응력분포에 대한 3차원 유한요소법적 연구

  • Hong, Hae-Ryong (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Choi, Dae-Gyun (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Bak, Jin (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
  • 홍해룡 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소) ;
  • 최대균 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소) ;
  • 백진 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소) ;
  • 권긍록 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소)
  • Published : 2007.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: Recently there are on an increasing trend of using implants-especially in edentulous mandible of severly alveolar bone recessed. Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the displacement and stress distribution of various mandibular implant-retained overdenture models supported by two implants in interforaminal region under the occlusion scheme load. Material and method: FEA models were made by the 3D scanning of the edentulous mandibular dentiform. The three models were named as Model M1, M2, and M3 accord ing to the position of implants: M1, Lt. incisor area, M2, Canine area, and M3, 1st Premolar area. Inter-implant angulation model was named as M4. Conventional complete denture was named M5 and used as a control group. Ball implant and Gold matrice were used as a retentive anchors. The occlusion type loads were applied horizontally over each tooth. Results: 1. In mandibular implant retained overdenture Canine Protected Occlusion type load resulted in higher levels of stress to the implants and female matrices than other types of loads. 2. The overdenture model M1, with implants in lateral incisor areas resulted in lower stress concentration to the implants and female matrices than other models. 3. In mandibular implant retained overdenture the stresses of the implant and female matrice were lower in mesially inclined implant than these of parallel installed implant. Conclusion: Lateral incisor areas could be the best site for the implants in mandibular implant-retained overdenture. The mandibular implant retained overdenture models mentioned above showed to the lowest stress to the implants and female matrices.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea National Statistical Office. 2006. (http://www.stat.go.kr)
  2. Wright PS. Two implants for all edentulous mandibles. Br Dent 2006:200:8:469 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4813489
  3. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill concensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two implant overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edntulous patients. Gerontology 2002:19:3-4
  4. Chiapasco M, Gatti C. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures with immediate loading: a 3- to 8-year prospective study on 328 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003:5:1:29-38
  5. Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular Implant-Retained Over denture: Finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998:13:369-376
  6. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006:15:1:24-34 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.36
  7. Petropoulos VC, Smith W, Kousvelari E. Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997:12:2:176-85
  8. Karabuda C, Tosun T, Ermis E, Ozdemir T. Comparison of 2 retentive systems for implant-supported overdentures soft tissue management and evaluation of patient satisfaction. J Periodontol 2002:73:9:1067-70 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.9.1067
  9. Borchers L, Reichart P. Three dimensional stress distribution around a dental implant at different stages of interface development. J Dent Res 1983:62:155-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620021401
  10. Rieger MR, Fareed K, Adams WK, Tanquist RA. Bone stress distribution for three endosseous implant. J Prosthet Dent 1989:61:223-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90379-X
  11. Jo YH. Hobo S, Takayama H. Occlusion. Koonja Publishing Inc. 1996:434-453
  12. Lundeen HC, Gibbs CH. Advances in ccelusion. John Wright PSG Inc. Boston Bristol London. 1982:21-22
  13. Chan MF, Narhi TO, de Baat C, Kalk W. Treatment of atrophic edentulous maxilla with implant-supported overdentures: a review of literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998:11:7-15
  14. Geertman ME. Boerrigter EM. Van Waas MA. van Oort RP. Clinical aspects of multicenter clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures in patients with severely resorbed mandibles. J Prosthet Dent 1996:75:194-204 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90099-2
  15. Muller F, Heath MR, Ott R. Maximum bite force after the replacement of complete dentures. The Gerodontology Association 2001:18:58-62 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2001.00058.x
  16. Taylor TD. Implant Overdentures: The Standard of Care for Edentulous Patients. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc. 71-81
  17. Porter JA Jr, Petropoulos VC, Brunski JB. Comparison of load distribution for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002:17:5:651-62
  18. Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Effect of anchorage system and base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdenture. J Prosthet Dent 2000:84:327-34 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.109378
  19. Satoh T. Maeda Y, Komiyama Y. Biomechanical Rationale for Intentionally Inclined Implants in the Posterior Mandible Using 3D Finite Element Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005:20:533-539
  20. Gulizio MP, Agar JR. Kelly JR. Taylor TD. Effect of implant angulation upon retention of overdenture attachments. J Prosthodont 2005:14:1:3-11 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00005.x
  21. Kordatzis K, Wright PS, Meijer HJ. Posterior Mandibular Residual Ridge Resorption in Patients with Conventional Dentures and Implant Overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003:18:447-452
  22. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, van't Hof MA, Geertman ME, van Oort RP. Implant-retained overdentures compared with complete dentures with or without preprosthetic surgery. A prospective study followed over 10 years. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2005:112:1:7-12
  23. Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Stegenga B, van't Hof MA, van Oort RP, Vissink A. Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible. A five-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000:11:195-201 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x
  24. Visser A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont 2006:19:3:271-8