The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution on Telescopic System for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture

이중관 구조 하악 임플랜트 피개의치의 응력 분포에 관한 유한요소법적 분석

  • Oh, Jung-Ran (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Woo, Yi-Hyung (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Lee, Sung-Bok (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Bak, Jin (Dept. of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University)
  • 오정란 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과 보철학 교실) ;
  • 우이형 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과 보철학 교실) ;
  • 이성복 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과 보철학 교실) ;
  • 백진 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과 보철학 교실)
  • Published : 2008.08.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in mandibular implant overdentures with telescopic crowns compared to bar attachment. Material and methods: Three-dimensional finite element models consisting of the mandibular bone, 4 implants, and primary bar-splinted superstructure or secondary splinted superstructure with telescopic crowns were created. Vertical and oblique loads were directed onto the occlusal areas of the superstructures to simulate the maximal intercuspal contacts and working contacts such as group function occlusion. Maximum stress and stress distribution were analysed in mandibular bone, implant abutments, and superstructures. Results: 1. In comparison of von Mises stress on mandibular bone, telescopic overdenture had a little lower stress values in vertical load and working side load except oblique load. In the mandible, the telescopic overdenture distributed more uniform stress than the bar overdenture. 2. In comparison of von Mises stress on implant abutments, telescopic overdenture had much lower stress values in all load conditions. In implant abutments, the telescopic overdenture distributed stress similar to the bar overdenture. Stress was concentrated on the distal surfaces of the posterior implant abutments in both mandibular overdentures. 3. In comparison of von Mises stress on superstructures, the telescopic overdenture had much more stress values in all load conditions. However, the telescopic overdenture distributed more uniform stress on superstructure than the bar overdenture. In the bar overdenture, stress was concentrated on each cental area of bar structures and connected area between implant abutments and bar structures. Conclusion: In the results of this study, the telescopic overdenture had lower stress values than the bar overdenture in mandibular bone and implant abutments, but more stress values in superstructures. However, if optimal material was selected in making superstructures, the telescopic overdenture was compared to the bar overdenture in stress distribution.

연구목적: 본 연구에서는 하악의 동일한 부위에 4개의 임플랜트를 식립하여 임플랜트 피개의치를 설계하는 경우, 바 구조와 이중관 구조 간의 응력분포에 대해 비교 분석하고자 하였다. 연구재료 및 방법: 하악골, 하악골에 식립한 4개의 임플랜트, 일차고정의 바 연결 상부구조, 이차고정의 이중관 상부구조를 삼차원 유한요소 모델링하였고, 상부 구조물에 최대 교두 감합위를 재현하는 수직하중과 측방운동시 작업측의 군기능을 재현하는 경사하중을 가하고, 최대 응력과 응력분포를 하악골, 임플랜트 지대주, 임플랜트 상부 구조물에서 분석하였다. 결과: 1. 악골에서의 최대 응력값은 경사하중을 제외하고 수직하중과 작업측 경사하중에서 이중관 구조가 바 구조에 비해 다소 적은 응력값을 보였다. 이중관 구조가 바 구조에 비해 비교적 악골 전체에 고르게 응력이 분포되었다. 2. 지대주에서는 모든 하중 조건에서 이중관 구조가 바 구조에 비해 낮은 응력값을 보였다. 응력 분포 양상은 두 구조에서 모두 비슷한 양상을 나타내었으며, 최후방 지대주의 원심면에 응력이 집중되었다. 3. 상부구조물에서는 모든 하중 조건에서 이중관 구조가 바 구조에 비해 높은 응력값을 나타냈다. 그러나, 바 구조에서는 바의 각 중심부와 지대주와의 연결부위, 지대주의 치경부에 응력이 집중된 반면, 이중관 구조에서는 상부 구조물 전체에 비교적 고른 응력 분포를 보였다. 결론: 본 연구 결과 이중관 구조가 바 구조보다 악골과 지대주에서는 더 낮은 응력을, 상부 구조물에서는 더 큰 응력을 나타냈다. 상부 구조물에 비교적 크게 전달되는 응력을 견딜 수 있는 상부구조물의 설계와 재료 선택만 이루진다면, 응력분포 면에서 이차고정을 하는 이중관 구조가 일차 고정하는 바 구조에 비해 유리하리라 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswiok RK Jr, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdenture: Part I - Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-63 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80331-2
  2. Kenney R, Richards MW. Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant- retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:559-64 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70032-0
  3. Enquist B, Bergedal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:129-34
  4. Naert I, De Clocq M, Theuniers G, Schepers E. Overdentures supported by osseointegrated fixtures for the edentulous mandible : a 2.5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:191-6
  5. Mericske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of overdenture restorations supported by osseointegrated titanium implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:375-83
  6. Wismeyer D, van Waas MA, Vermeeren JI. Overdentures supported by ITI implants: a 6.5-year evaluation of patient satisfaction and prosthetic aftercare. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:744-9
  7. Mericske-Stern R, Milani D, Mericske E, Olah A. Periotest measurements and osseointegration of mandibular ITI implants supporting overdentures. A one-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:73-82
  8. Batenburg RH, van Oort RP, Reintsema H, Brouwer TJ, Raghoebar GM, Boering G. Overdentures supported by two IMZ implants in the lower jaw; a retrospective study of peri-implant tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:207-12 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050403.x
  9. Jemt T, Book K, Linde′n B, Urde G. Failures and complications in 92 consecutively inserted overdentures supported by Branemark implants in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae: a study from prosthetic treatment to first annual check-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:162-7
  10. Heckermann SM, Farmand M, Wahl G. Erste erfahrungen mit resilienzteleskopen bei der prothetischen versorgung ennossaler implantate. Zeitschrift fur Zahnarztliche Implantologie 1993;9:188-93
  11. Spiekermann H. Implantology. In: Rateitschak KH, Wolf HF. Color atlas of dental medicine. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers. 1995
  12. Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:125-30
  13. Heckermann SM, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber HP, Wichmann MG. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part I : in vivo verification of stereolithographic model. Clin Oral Impl Res 2001;12:617-23 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120610.x
  14. Heckermann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP. Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004;15:560-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01064.x
  15. Heckermann SM, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber HP. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:640-7 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120613.x
  16. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Bosman F, Steen WH. A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:147-57 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01598.x
  17. Blickle W, Niederdellmann H, Schwarzer J. Stabilitat enossaler implantate bei primarer und sekulndarer Verblockung. Z Zahnarztt Implantol 1991;7:116-20
  18. Meijer HJ, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJ, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: Influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:96-102 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90293-J
  19. Williams KR, Waston CJ, Murphy WM, Scott J, Gregory M, Sinobad D. Finite element analysis of fixed attached to osseointegrated implants. Quintessence Int 1990;21:563-70
  20. Langer A. Telescope retainers for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:37-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90009-3
  21. Christian B, George G. A new concept of overdentures with telescopic crowns on osseointegrated implants. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1994;14:487-95
  22. Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. Stress analysis in edentulous mandibular bone supporting implant-retained 1-piece or multiple superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:578-83
  23. Hofmann M, Ludwig P. Telescopic denture in partially edentulous arch (functional principle, indication and results of a follow-up study). Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1973;28:2-17
  24. Farah JW, Craig RG, Meroueh KA. Finite element analysis of three- and four-unit bridges. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16:603-11 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1989.tb01384.x
  25. Lundgren D, Laurell L. Occlusal force pattern during chewing and biting in dentitions restored with fixed bridge of cross-arch extension. I. Bilateral end abutments. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:57-71 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1986.tb01556.x
  26. Hoshaw SJ, Brubski JB, Cochran GV. Mechanical loading of Branemark implant affects interfacial bone resorption and remodeling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:345-60
  27. Giulio M, Massimo L, Paolo P, Giulio P. Mandibular implant- retained overdenture: finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:369-76
  28. Curry J. The mechanical adaptations of bones. Princeton University Press 1984
  29. Richter EJ. In vivo horizontal bending moments on implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:232-44
  30. Sahin S, Cehreli MC, Yalcin E. The influence of functional forces on biomechenics of implant-supported prostheses - A review. J Dent 2002;30:271-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00065-9
  31. Sakaguchi RL, Borgersen SE. Nonlinear contact analysis of preload in dental implant screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:295-302
  32. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant- abutment connection: An 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26