Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.1.10

A FEM study on stress distribution of tooth-supported and implant-supported overdentures retained by telescopic crowns  

Paek, Jang-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Lee, Chang-Gyu (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Kim, Tae-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Kim, Min-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Kim, Hyeong-Seob (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Woo, Yi-Hyung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.50, no.1, 2012 , pp. 10-20 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in mandibular implant-supported overdentures and tooth-supported overdentures with telescopic crowns. Materials and methods: The assumption of this study was that there were 2, 3, 4 natural teeth and implants which are located in the second premolar and canine regions in various distributed conditions. The mandible, teeth (or implants and abutments), and connectors are modeled, and analyzed with the commercial software, ANSYS Version 10.1. Stress distribution was evaluated under 150 N vertical load bilaterally on 3 experimental conditions - between canine areas, canine and $2^{nd}$ premolars, 10 mm posterior to $2^{nd}$ premolars. Results: Overall, the case of the implant group showed more stress than the case of the teeth group in stress distribution to bone. In stress distribution to superstructures of tooth and implants, there was no significant difference between TH group and IM group and the highest stress appeared in TH-IV and IM-IV. The stress caused from bar was much higher than those of implant and tooth. TH group showed less stress than IM group in stress distribution to abutment teeth and implant. Conclusion: The results shows that it is crucial to make sure that distance between impact loading point and abutment tooth does not get too far apart, and if it does, it is at best to set abutment tooth on premolar tooth region. It will be necessary to conduct more experiments on effects on implants, natural teeth and bone, in order to apply these results to a clinical treatment.
Keywords
Telescopic crown; Overdenture; Stress distribution; Finite element method;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow- up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:33-42
2 Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, Hutton JE, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, Watson RM, Herrmann I. A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:513-522.
3 Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199-209.
4 Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-552.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Naert I, De Clercq M, Theuniers G, Schepers E. Overdentures supported by osseointegrated fixtures for the edentulous mandible: a 2.5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:191-196.
6 Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. Stress analysis in edentulous mandibular bone supporting implantretained 1-piece or multiple superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:578-583.
7 Ralph WJ. The effects of dental treatment on biting force. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:143-145.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Heckmann SM, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber HP, Wichmann MG. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:640-647.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular implantretained overdenture: finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:369-376.
10 Krennmair G, Seemann R, Weinlander M, Piehslinger E. Comparison of ball and telescopic crown attachments in implantretained mandibular overdentures: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:598-606.
11 Curry J. The mechanical adaptations of bones. Princeton University Press. 1984.
12 Brewer AA. Overdentures. 2nd ed. Mosby, St. Louis; 1980.
13 Fanuscu MI, Caputo AA. Influence of attachment systems on load transfer of an implant-assisted maxillary overdenture. J Prosthodont 2004;13:214-220.   DOI
14 Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:129-134.
15 van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:720-726.   DOI
16 Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP. Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:560-569.   DOI