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

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.