The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: A finite element study

  • Lee, Hyeonjong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Park, Soyeon (School of Mechanical Engineering, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Noh, Gunwoo (School of Mechanical Engineering, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2019.08.01
  • Accepted : 2019.12.10
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. A novel retentive type of implant prosthesis that does not require the use of cement or screw holes has been introduced; however, there are few reports examining the biomechanical aspects of this novel implant. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical features of cementless fixation (CLF) implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The test groups of three variations of CLF implant prostheses and a control group of conventional cement-retained (CR) prosthesis were designed three-dimensionally for finite element analysis. The test groups were divided according to the abutment shape and the relining strategy on the inner surface of the implant crown as follows; resin-air hole-full (RAF), resin-air hole (RA), and resin-no air hole (RNA). The von Mises stress and principal stress were used to evaluate the stress values and distributions of the implant components. Contact open values were calculated to analyze the gap formation of the contact surfaces at the abutment-resin and abutment-implant interfaces. The micro-strain values were evaluated for the surrounding bone. RESULTS. Values reflecting the maximum stress on the abutment were as follows (in MPa): RAF, 25.6; RA, 23.4; RNA, 20.0; and CR, 15.8. The value of gap formation was measured from 0.88 to 1.19 ㎛ at the abutment-resin interface and 24.4 to 24.7 ㎛ at the abutment-implant interface. The strain distribution was similar in all cases. CONCLUSION. CLF had no disadvantages in terms of the biomechanical features compared with conventional CR implant prosthesis and could be successfully applied for implant prosthesis.

Keywords

References

  1. Muddugangadhar BC, Amarnath GS, Sonika R, Chheda PS, Garg A. Meta-analysis of failure and survival rate of implantsupported single crowns, fixed partial denture, and implant tooth-supported prostheses. J Int Oral Health 2015;7:11-7.
  2. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:772-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01912.x
  3. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease - a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1278-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12954
  4. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:84-98. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1
  5. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Bragger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:141-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12168
  6. Amorfini L, Storelli S, Mosca D, Scanferla M, Romeo E. Comparison of cemented vs screw-retained, customized computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture zirconia abutments for esthetically located single-tooth implants: A 10-year randomized prospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:359-66. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5305
  7. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:419-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026
  8. Lee JI, Lee Y, Kim NY, Kim YL, Cho HW. A photoelastic stress analysis of screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses with marginal gaps. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:735-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12134
  9. Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:817-25.
  10. Tanimura R, Suzuki S. Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study. Int J Implant Dent 2017;3:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0076-4
  11. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70203-8
  12. Taylor RC, Ghoneim AS, McGlumphy EA. An esthetic technique to fill screw-retained fixed prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2004;30:384-5. https://doi.org/10.1563/0681.1
  13. Weininger B, McGlumphy E, Beck M. Esthetic evaluation of materials used to fill access holes of screw-retained implant crowns. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:145-9. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2008)34[145:EEOMUT]2.0.CO;2
  14. Sancho-Puchades M, Crameri D, Özcan M, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1515-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13020
  15. Gehrke P, Bleuel K, Fischer C, Sader R. Influence of margin location and luting material on the amount of undetected cement excess on CAD/CAM implant abutments and cement-retained zirconia crowns: an in-vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0809-2
  16. Ma S, Fenton A. Screw- versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:127-45. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3947
  17. Papakostas GI, McGrath P, Stewart J, Charles D, Chen Y, Mischoulon D, Dording C, Fava M. Psychic and somatic anxiety symptoms as predictors of response to fluoxetine in major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Res 2008;161:116-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2008.02.011
  18. Vaillancourt H, Pilliar RM, McCammond D. Finite element analysis of crestal bone loss around porous-coated dental implants. J Appl Biomater 1995;6:267-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jab.770060408
  19. Bulaqi HA, Mousavi Mashhadi M, Safari H, Samandari MM, Geramipanah F. Effect of increased crown height on stress distribution in short dental implant components and their surrounding bone: A finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:548-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.11.007
  20. Niinomi M. Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys. Mater Sci Eng 1998;243:231-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00806-X
  21. 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.
  22. Tolidis K, Papadogiannis D, Papadogiannis Y, Gerasimou P. Dynamic and static mechanical analysis of resin luting cements. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012;6:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.10.002
  23. Lang LA, Kang B, Wang RF, Lang BR. Finite element analysis to determine implant preload. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:539-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.012
  24. Guda T, Ross TA, Lang LA, Millwater HR. Probabilistic analysis of preload in the abutment screw of a dental implant complex. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:183-93 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60177-8
  25. Wang RF, Kang B, Lang LA, Razzoog ME. The dynamic natures of implant loading. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:359-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60079-2
  26. Silva GC, Cornacchia TM, de Magalhaes CS, Bueno AC, Moreira AN. Biomechanical evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: a nonlinear finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1479-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.06.010
  27. Lee H, Park S, Noh G. Biomechanical analysis of 4 types of short dental implants in a resorbed mandible. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:659-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.013
  28. Roberts WE, Sarandeep H, Jeffery AR. Bone modeling: biomechanics, molecular mechanisms, and clinical perspectives. Semin Orthod 2004;10:123-61. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.01.003
  29. Torcato LB, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, Falcón-Antenucci RM, Santiago Junior JF, de Faria Almeida DA. Influence of parafunctional loading and prosthetic connection on stress distribution: a 3D finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:644-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.018
  30. Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Almeida DA, de Souza Batista VE, Lemos CA, Pellizzer EP. Finite element analysis on influence of implant surface treatments, connection and bone types. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;63:292-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.02.061
  31. Ramos Verri F, Santiago Junior JF, de Faria Almeida DA, de Oliveira GB, de Souza Batista VE, Marques Honório H, Noritomi PY, Pellizzer EP. Biomechanical influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress distribution over internal hexagon short implant: 3-D finite element analysis with statistical test. J Biomech 2015;48:138-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.021
  32. Minatel L, Verri FR, Kudo GAH, de Faria Almeida DA, de Souza Batista VE, Lemos CAA, Pellizzer EP, Santiago JF Junior. Effect of different types of prosthetic platforms on stress-distribution in dental implant-supported prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017;71:35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.062
  33. He Y, Fok A, Aparicio C, Teng W. Contact analysis of gap formation at dental implant-abutment interface under oblique loading: A numerical-experimental study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:741-52.
  34. Robinson D, Aguilar L, Gatti A, Abduo J, Lee PVS, Ackland D. Load response of the natural tooth and dental implant: A comparative biomechanics study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:169-78. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.3.169
  35. Mahnama A, Tafazzoli-Shadpour M, Geramipanah F, Mehdi Dehghan M. Verification of the mechanostat theory in mandible remodeling after tooth extraction: animal study and numerical modeling. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;20:354-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.02.013

Cited by

  1. A novel retentive type of dental implant prosthesis: marginal fitness of the cementless double crown type implant prosthesis evaluated by bacterial penetration and viability vol.12, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.4.233
  2. Effect of Passive Support of the Spinal Muscles on the Biomechanics of a Lumbar Finite Element Model vol.10, pp.18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186278
  3. Biomechanical stress and microgap analysis of bone-level and tissue-level implant abutment structure according to the five different directions of occlusal loads vol.12, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.316
  4. Comparative finite element analysis of mandibular posterior single zirconia and titanium implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis vol.13, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.6.396
  5. Three-dimensional finite element analysis comparative model of tooth-implant nonrigid fixation vol.97, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549720972781
  6. Effect of mandibular contouring surgery on the stress distribution during various clenching tasks vol.8, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwaa096
  7. Design process of patient-specific osteosynthesis plates using topology optimization vol.8, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwab047