The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Does matching relation exist between the length and the tilting angle of terminal implants in the all-on-four protocol? stress distributions by 3D finite element analysis

  • Li, Xiaomei (Department of Stomatology, Changhai Hospital) ;
  • Cao, Zhizhong (Department of Stomatology, Changhai Hospital) ;
  • Qiu, Xiaoqian (Department of Stomatology, Changhai Hospital) ;
  • Tang, Zhen (Department of Stomatology, Changhai Hospital) ;
  • Gong, Lulu (School of Life Sciences and Technology, Tongji University) ;
  • Wang, Dalin (Department of Stomatology, Changhai Hospital)
  • Received : 2014.12.04
  • Accepted : 2015.03.18
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. To explore whether there is matching relation between the length and the tilting angle of terminal implants in the All-on-Four protocol by studying the effects of different implant configurations on stress distributions of implant, bone, and framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were employed to support a full-arch fixed prosthesis and five three-dimensional finite element models were established with CT images, based on the length (S and L) and distal tilt angle ($0^{\circ}$, $30^{\circ}$ and $45^{\circ}$) of terminal implants for an edentulous mandible, which named: Tilt0-S, Tilt30-S, Tilt30-L, Tilt45-S and Tilt45-L. An oblique 240 N was loaded at second molar. The von Mises Stresses were analyzed. The implants were consecutively named #1 to #4 from the loading point. RESULTS. 1) Tilt0-S had the greatest stress on the implants, with the other groups exhibiting variable reductions; the four implants of Tilt45-L demonstrated the greatest reduction in stress. 2) Tilt0-S had the greatest stress at bone around #1 implant neck, and Tilt45-L exhibited the least stress, which was a 36.3% reduction compared to Tilt0-S. 3) The greatest stress in the framework was found on the cantilevers distal to #1 implant. Tilt45-S exhibited the least stress. CONCLUSION. Matching different length and tilting angle of the terminal implants led to variable stress reductions on implants, bone and the superstructure. By optimizing implant configuration, the reduction of stress on implants and surrounding bone could be maximized. Under the present condition, Tilt45-L was the preferred configuration. Further clinical testings are required.

Keywords

References

  1. Strassburger C, Kerschbaum T, Heydecke G. Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: A literature review. Part 2: Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:339-48.
  2. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  3. Branemark PI, Svensson B, van Steenberghe D. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:227-31. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060405.x
  4. Francetti L, Agliardi E, Testori T, Romeo D, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M. Immediate rehabilitation of the mandible with fixed full prosthesis supported by axial and tilted implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:255-63.
  5. 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;22:639-44.
  6. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:2-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x
  7. Shackleton JL, Carr L, Slabbert JC, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:23-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90250-X
  8. Correa S, Ivancik J, Isaza JF, Naranjo M. Evaluation of the structural behavior of three and four implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations by finite element analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2012;56:110-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2011.07.001
  9. Bellini CM, Romeo D, Galbusera F, Taschieri S, Raimondi MT, Zampelis A, Francetti L. Comparison of tilted versus nontilted implant-supported prosthetic designs for the restoration of the edentuous mandible: a biomechanical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:511-7.
  10. Skalak R. Biomechanical consideration in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X
  11. Fazi G, Tellini S, Vangi D, Branchi R. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of different implant configurations for a mandibular fixed prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:752-9.
  12. Naini RB, Nokar S, Borghei H, Alikhasi M. Tilted or parallel implant placement in the completely edentulous mandible? A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:776-81.
  13. Takayama H. Biomechanical considerations on osseointegrated implants. In: Hobo S, Ichida E, Garcia LT, eds. Osseointegration and Occlusal Rehabilitation. 2nd ed. Tokyo; Quintessence; 1990. p. 265-80.
  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. Sertgoz A, Guvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:165-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90301-7
  16. Rodriguez AM, Aquilino SA, Lund PS. Cantilever and implant biomechanics: a review of the literature, Part 2. J Prosthodont 1994;3:114-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1994.tb00138.x
  17. Kim KS, Kim YL, Bae JM, Cho HW. Biomechanical comparison of axial and tilted implants for mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:976-84.
  18. Gita Malathi K, Ravi Chandra PV. Mechanical complications with implants and implant prostheses. Indian J Dent Adv 2011;3:555-8.
  19. Montero J, Manzano G, Beltran D, Lynch CD, Suarez-Garcia MJ, Castillo-Oyague R. Clinical evaluation of the incidence of prosthetic complications in implant crowns constructed with UCLA castable abutments. A cohort follow-up study. J Dent 2012;40:1081-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.09.001
  20. Bragger U, Aeschlimann S, Burgin W, Hammerle CH, Lang NP. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:26-34. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001026.x
  21. Naert I, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Darius P. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:949-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90557-Q
  22. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:625-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01117.x
  23. Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:720-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01414.x
  24. Zampelis A, Rangert B, Heijl L. Tilting of splinted implants for improved prosthodontic support: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:S35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60006-7
  25. Sertgoz A. Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont. 1997;10:19-27.
  26. Rubo JH, Capello Souza EA. Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:105-13.
  27. Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Pera F, Menini M, Mossolov A, Drago C, Pera P. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of load transmission using different implant inclinations and cantilever lengths. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:539-42.
  28. Korioth TW, Johann AR. Influence of mandibular superstructure shape on implant stresses during simulated posterior biting. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:67-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70129-0

Cited by

  1. Biomechanical three-dimensional finite element analysis of monolithic zirconia crown with different cement type vol.7, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.475
  2. Effects of Positions and Angulations of Titanium Dental Implants in Biomechanical Performances in the All-on-Four Treatment: 3D Numerical and Strain Gauge Methods vol.10, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/met10020280
  3. Virtual Implant Rehabilitation of the Severely Atrophic Maxilla: A Radiographic Study vol.8, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8010014
  4. Finite element analysis of the effect of framework materials at the bone-implant interface in the all-on-four implant system vol.18, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.310031