The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

EFFECT OF NUMBER OF IMPLANTS AND CANTILEVER DESIGN ON STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN THREE-UNIT FIXED PARTIAL DENTURES: A THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

  • Park, Ji-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jai-Bong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yang, Jae-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2008.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses are influenced by various biomechanical factors. The information that shows the effect of implant number and position of cantilever on stress in the supporting bone is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of implant number variation and the effect of 2 different cantilever types on stress distribution in the supporting bone, using 3-dimensional finite element analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3-D FE model of a mandibular section of bone with a missing second premolar, first molar, and second molar was developed. $4.1{\times}10$ mm screw-type dental implant was selected. 4.0 mm height solid abutments were fixed over all implant fixtures. Type III gold alloy was selected for implant-supported fixed prostheses. For mesial cantilever test, model 1-1 which has three $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with no pontic, model 1-2 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with a central pontic and model 1-3 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with mesial cantilever were simulated. And then, 155N oblique force was applied to the buccal cusp of second premolar. For distal cantilever test, model 2-1 which has three $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with no pontic, model 2-2 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with a central pontic and model 2-3 which has two $4.1{\times}10$ mm implants and fixed prosthesis with distal cantilever were simulated. And then, 206N oblique force was applied to the buccal cusp of second premolar. The implant and superstructure were simulated in finite element software(Pro/Engineer wildfire 2.0). The stress values were observed with the maximum von Mises stresses. RESULTS: Among the models without a cantilever, model 1-1 and 2-1 which had three implants, showed lower stress than model 1-2 and 2-2 which had two implants. Although model 2-1 was applied with 206N, it showed lower stress than model 1-2 which was applied with 155N. In models that implant positions of models were same, the amount of applied occlusal load largely influenced the maximum von Mises stress. Model 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, which were loaded with 155N, showed less stress than corresponding model 2-1, 2-2 and 2- 3 which were loaded with 206N. For the same number of implants, the existence of a cantilever induced the obvious increase of maximum stress. Model 1-3 and 2-3 which had a cantilever, showed much higher stress than the others which had no cantilever. In all models, the von Mises stresses were concentrated at the cortical bone around the cervical region of the implants. Meanwhile, in model 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, which were loaded on second premolar position, the first premolar participated in stress distribution. First premolars of model 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 did not participate in stress distribution. CONCLUSION: 1. The more implants supported, the less stress was induced, regardless of applied occlusal loads. 2. The maximum von Mises stress in the bone of the implant-supported three unit fixed dental prosthesis with a mesial cantilever was 1.38 times that with a central pontic. The maximum von Mises stress in the bone of the implant-supported three-unit fixed dental prosthesis with a distal cantilever was 1.59 times that with a central pontic. 3. A distal cantilever induced larger stress in the bone than a mesial cantilever. 4. A adjacent tooth which contacts implant-supported fixed prosthesis participated in the stress distribution.

Keywords

References

  1. Becker CM, Kaiser DA. Implant-retained cantilever fixed prosthesis: Where and When. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:432-5 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.110259
  2. English CE. Biomechanical concerns with fixed partial dentures involving implants. Implant Dent 1993;2:221-42 https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199312000-00002
  3. Buser D, Belser UC, Lang NP. The original one-stage dental implant system and its clinical application. Periodontology 2000 1998;17:106-18 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00128.x
  4. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St Louis: Mosby; 2005. p. 184
  5. Rangert B, Krogh PHJ, Langer B, Roekel NV. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10;326- 34
  6. Sullivan D. Prosthetic considerations for the utilization of osseointegrated fixtures in the partially edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:39-45
  7. 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 Impl Res 1996;7:329-36 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070405.x
  8. Lambrecht JT, Filippi A, Kunzel AR, Schiel HJ. Longterm evaluation of submerged and nonsubmerged ITI solid-screw titanium implants: A 10-year life table analysis of 468 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:826-34
  9. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. a seven-year prospective study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003;14:303-11 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.120905.x
  10. Becker CM. Cantilever fixed prostheses utilizing dental implants: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Quintessence Int 2004;35:437-41
  11. White SN, Caputo AA, Anderkvist T. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:493-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90189-9
  12. Tashkandi EA, Lang BR, Edge MJ. Analysis of strain at selected bone sites of a cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:158-64 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90300-5
  13. Wang S, Hobkirk JA. Load distribution on implants with a cantilevered superstructure : an in vitro pilot study. Implant Dent 1996;5:36-42 https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199600510-00008
  14. Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, Miyakawa O. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:82-90
  15. Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:234-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.12.017
  16. Tarnow DP, Magner AW, Fletcher P. The effect of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence or absence of the interproximal dental papilla. J Periodontol 1992;63:995-6 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.12.995
  17. Tarnow SC, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of interimplant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  18. Kwon YS, Hwang SH, Han DH. Comparison of maximum occlusal forces on osseointegrated implant supported fixed prostheses and natural teeth. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2005;43:498-510
  19. Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Sevimay M, Soykan E, Unsal E. The influence of occlusal loading location on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:144-50 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.10.018
  20. Ak a K, Iplik iog lu H. Finite element stress analysis of the effect of short implant usage in place of cantilever extensions in mandibular posterior edentulism. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:350-6 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00872.x
  21. Geng JP, Tan KBC, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115251
  22. Eranslan O, Sevimay A, Usumez A, Eskitascioglu G. Effects of cantilever design and material on stress distribution in fixed partial dentures-a finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:273-8 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01429.x
  23. Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kili arslan MA, Eskitascioglu G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93:227-34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.019
  24. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7
  25. Kim Y, Oh TJ. Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Impl Res 2005; 16:26-35 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x
  26. Haraldson T, Carlsson GE. Bite force and oral function in patients with osseointegrated oral implants. Scand J Dent Res 1977;85:200-8
  27. Haraldson T, Zarb G. A 10-year follow-up study of the masticatory system after treatment with osseointegrated implant bridges. Scand J Dent Res 1988;96:243-52
  28. Jemt T, Karlsson S. Occlusal force and mandibular movements in patients with removable overdentures and fixed prostheses supported by implants in the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:301-8
  29. Mericske-stern R, Hofmann J, Wedig A, Geering AH. In vivo measurements of maximal occlusal force and minimal pressure threshold on overdentures supported by implants or natural roots: a comparative study, part 1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:641-9
  30. Mericske-stern R, Zarb GA. In vivo measurements of some functional aspects with mandibular fixed prostheses supported by implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 1996;7: 153-61 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070209.x
  31. Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Slagter AP, van't Hof MA, Greetman ME, Kalk W. Bite forces with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 1998;77: 1832-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345980770101101
  32. Mericske-stern R, Assal P, Mericske E, B?rgin W. Occlusal force and oral tactile sensibility measured in partially edentulous patients with ITI implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:345-54
  33. Koolstra JH, van Eijden TMGJ, Weijs WA, Naeije M. A three-dimensional mathematical model of the human masticatory system predicting maximum possible bite forces. J Biomechanics 1988;21:563-76 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(88)90219-9
  34. van Eijden TMGJ. Three-dimensional analyses of human bite-force magnitude and moment. Archs oral Biol 1991;36:535-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(91)90148-N
  35. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St Louis: Mosby; 2005. p. 100-101
  36. Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluation parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis-A two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:80-8 https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0080:EPOODI>2.3.CO;2
  37. Iplik ioglu H, Ak a K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length, and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;30:41-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00057-4