The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Does the prosthesis weight matter? 3D finite element analysis of a fixed implant-supported prosthesis at different weights and implant numbers

  • Tribst, Joao Paulo Mendes (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Dal Piva, Amanda Maria de Oliveira (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Borges, Alexandre Luiz Souto (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Rodrigues, Vinicius Aneas (Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Pindamonhangaba (FUNVIC)) ;
  • Bottino, Marco Antonio (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Kleverlaan, Cornelis Johannes (Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), The University of Amsterdam and Free University Amsterdam)
  • Received : 2019.11.06
  • Accepted : 2020.02.28
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study evaluated the influence of prosthesis weight and number of implants on the bone tissue microstrain. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifteen (15) fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis designs were created using a modeling software with different numbers of implants (4, 6, or 8) and prosthesis weights (10, 15, 20, 40, or 60 g). Each solid was imported to the computer aided engineering software and tetrahedral elements formed the mesh. The material properties were assigned to each solid with isotropic and homogeneous behavior. The friction coefficient was set as 0.3 between all the metallic interfaces, 0.65 for the cortical bone-implant interface, and 0.77 for the cancellous bone-implant interface. The standard earth gravity was defined along the Z-axis and the bone was fixed. The resulting equivalent strain was assumed as failure criteria. RESULTS. The prosthesis weight was related to the bone strain. The more implants installed, the less the amount of strain generated in the bone. The most critical situation was the use of a 60 g prosthesis supported by 4 implants with the largest calculated magnitude of 39.9 mm/mm, thereby suggesting that there was no group able to induce bone remodeling simply due to the prosthesis weight. CONCLUSION. Heavier prostheses under the effect of gravity force are related to more strain being generated around the implants. Installing more implants to support the prosthesis enables attenuating the effects observed in the bone. The simulated prostheses were not able to generate harmful values of peri-implant bone strain.

Keywords

References

  1. Skirbutis G, Dzingute A, Masiliunaite V, Sulcaite G, Zilinskas J. A review of PEEK polymer's properties and its use in prosthodontics. Stomatologija 2017;19:19-23.
  2. Ohkubo C, Sato Y, Nishiyama Y, Suzuki Y. Titanium removable denture based on a one-metal rehabilitation concept. Dent Mater J 2017;36:517-23. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-137
  3. Tran L, Caldwell R, Quigley M, Fatone S. Stakeholder perspectives for possible residual limb monitoring system for persons with lower-limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil 2018;42:1-8.
  4. Pera F, Pesce P, Solimano F, Tealdo T, Pera P, Menini M. Carbon fibre versus metal framework in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations of the maxilla - a cohort clinical study. J Oral Rehabil 2017;44:392-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12493
  5. Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Nilner K. A prospective study of implant-supported full-arch yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal mandibular fixed dental prostheses: threeyear results. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:364-9.
  6. Sereno N, Rosentritt M, Jarman-Smith M, Lang R, Kolbeck C. In-vitro performance evaluation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant prosthetics with a cantilever design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:296. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.288_12679
  7. Tiossi R, Gomes EA, Faria ACL, Rodrigues RCS, Ribeiro RF. Biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia frameworks for implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:860-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12525
  8. Ravald N, Dahlgren S, Teiwik A, Grondahl K. Long-term evaluation of Astra Tech and Branemark implants in patients treated with full-arch bridges. Results after 12-15 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1144-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02524.x
  9. Belur D, Nagy WW. An alternative digital workflow for fabricating a mandibular implant-supported complete fixed dental prosthesis with limited restorative space: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.023
  10. Huh YH, Shin HJ, Kim DG, Park CJ, Cho LR. Full mouth fixed implant rehabilitation in a patient with generalized aggressive periodontitis. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:154-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2010.2.4.154
  11. Ramsey WO. Comparison of weight reduction in different designs of solid and hollow obturator prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:602. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90086-R
  12. Ouzer A. The evolution and fabrication of implant-supported full-arch hybrid prostheses. From conventional casted metal to an all-ceramic zirconia. N Y State Dent J 2015;81:44-9.
  13. Frost HM. Wolff 's Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod 1994;64:175-88.
  14. Tribst JP, Rodrigues VA, Dal Piva AO, Borges AL, Nishioka RS. The importance of correct implants positioning and masticatory load direction on a fixed prosthesis. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e81-7.
  15. Lee JY, Kim HY, Shin SW, Bryant SR. Number of implants for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:204-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.204
  16. Ogawa T, Dhaliwal S, Naert I, Mine A, Kronstrom M, Sasaki K, Duyck J. Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prostheses. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:525-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02076.x
  17. Dal Piva AMO, Tribst JPM, Borges ALS, Souza ROAE, Bottino MA. CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations. Dent Mater 2018;34:1342-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.06.024
  18. Tribst JPM, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Influence of custom-made and stock mouthguard thickness on biomechanical response to a simulated impact. Dent Traumatol 2018;34:429-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12432
  19. Alkan I, Sertgoz A, Ekici B. Influence of occlusal forces on stress distribution in preloaded dental implant screws. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:319-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.01.016
  20. Yu HY, Cai ZB, Zhou ZR, Zhu MH. Fretting behavior of cortical bone against titanium and its alloy. Wear 2005;259:910-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2005.01.037
  21. Grant JA, Bishop N, Gotzen N, Sprecher C, Honl M, Morlock M. Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: The implant-bone interface. J Biomech 2007;40:1158-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.04.007
  22. Danza M, Palmieri A, Farinella F, Brunelli G, Carinci F, Girardi A, Spinelli G. Three dimensional finite element analysis to detect stress distribution in spiral implants and surrounding bone. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2009;6:59-64.
  23. Opalinska A, Malka I, Dzwolak W, Chudoba T, Presz A, Lojkowski W. Size-dependent density of zirconia nanoparticles. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 2015;6:27-35. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.4
  24. Oguz K, Emir Y, Fehmi E. Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviors of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Softw 2006;37:649-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2006.02.004
  25. Hyslop DJS, Abdelkader AM, Cox A, Fray DJ. Electrochemical synthesis of a biomedically important Co-Cr alloy. Acta Materialia 2010;58:3124-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2010.01.053
  26. Nagai E, Otani K, Satoh Y, Suzuki S. Repair of denture base resin using woven metal and glass fiber: effect of methylene chloride pretreatment. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:496-500. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115183
  27. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA, Acrylic): https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/Polymethylmethacrylate-PMMA-Acrylic/. Accessed 22/7/19
  28. Caglar A, Bal BT, Karakoca S, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Sarisoy S. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of titanium and yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide abutments and implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:961-9.
  29. Nielsen R, Wilfing G. Zirconium and zirconium compounds. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2000.
  30. Anguiano-Sanchez J, Romero OM, Siller HR, Diaz-Elizondo JA, Flores-Villalba E, Rodriguez CA. Influence of PEEK coating on hip implant stress shielding: a finite element analysis. Comp Math Method Med 2016;2016:6183679.
  31. Why PEEK: http://www.hmp.com.tw/peek/. Accessed 22/7/19
  32. Ramos Nde C, Campos TM, Paz IS, Machado JP, Bottino MA, Cesar PF, Melo RM. Microstructure characterization and SCG of newly engineered dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2016;32:870-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.018
  33. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013;29:419-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.01.002
  34. Madfa AA, Kadir MR, Kashani J, Saidin S, Sulaiman E, Marhazlinda J, Rahbari R, Abdullah BJ, Abdullah H, Abu Kasim NH. Stress distributions in maxillary central incisors restored with various types of post materials and designs. Med Eng Phys 2014;36:962-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.03.018
  35. Tribst JPM, de Morais DC, Alonso AA, Piva AMOD, Borges ALS. Comparative three-dimensional finite element analysis of implant-supported fixed complete arch mandibular prostheses in two materials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17:255-60. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_11_17
  36. Battaglia S, Taddei P, Tozzi S, Sudanese A, Affatato S. Toward the interpretation of the combined effect of size and body weight on the tribological performance of total knee prostheses. Int Orthop 2014;38:1183-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2297-y
  37. Kumar GA, Kovoor LC, Oommen VM. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution around the implant and tooth in tooth implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs. J Dent Implants 2011;1:75-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-6781.91283
  38. Li Y, Jacox LA, Little SH, Ko CC. Orthodontic tooth movement: The biology and clinical implications. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018;34:207-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2018.01.007
  39. Koizumi H, Ishii T, Okazaki T, Kaketani M, Matsumura H, Yoneyama T. Castability and mechanical properties of Ti-15Mo-5Zr-3Al alloy in dental casting. J Oral Sci 2018;60:285-92. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.17-0280
  40. Meloni SM, De Riu G, Pisano M, Lolli FM, Deledda A, Campus G, Tullio A. Implant restoration of edentulous jaws with 3D software planning, guided surgery, immediate loading, and CAD-CAM full arch frameworks. Int J Dent 2013;2013:683423. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/683423
  41. Hjalmarsson L. On cobalt-chrome frameworks in implant dentistry. Swed Dent J Suppl 2009;201:3-83.
  42. Bhering CL, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RL, Barao VA. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: A prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016;69:715-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.059
  43. Papaspyridakos P, Kang K, DeFuria C, Amin S, Kudara Y, Weber HP. Digital workflow in full-arch implant rehabilitation with segmented minimally veneered monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: 2-year clinical follow-up. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30:5-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12323
  44. Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Happe A, Beuer F. Wear at the titanium-titanium and the titanium-zirconia implant-abutment interface: a comparative in vitro study. Dent Mater 2012;28:1215-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.08.008
  45. Menini M, Pesce P, Bevilacqua M, Pera F, Tealdo T, Barberis F, Pera P. Effect of framework in an implant-supported full-arch fixed prosthesis: 3D finite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:627-30. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4345
  46. Yilmaz G, Ugincius P, Sebik O, Turker KS. Tonic activity of the human temporalis muscle at mandibular rest position. Arch Oral Biol 2015;60:1645-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.08.013

Cited by

  1. The Influence of Custom-Milled Framework Design for an Implant-Supported Full-Arch Fixed Dental Prosthesis: 3D-FEA Sudy vol.17, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114040
  2. Influence of Alternative and Conventional Surface Treatments on the Bonding Mechanism between PEEK and Veneering Resin for Dental Application vol.11, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11060719
  3. Survival Rate and Deformation of External Hexagon Implants with One-Piece Zirconia Crowns vol.11, pp.7, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/met11071068
  4. Stress Concentration in Open Hole Laminate Composites Under Bending: Potential Application in Dental Implant Prosthesis vol.25, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2021-0235