Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.1.12

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of buccally cantilevered implant-supported prostheses in a severely resorbed mandible  

Alom, Ghaith (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kwon, Ho-Beom (Dental Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Lim, Young-Jun (Dental Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kim, Myung-Joo (Dental Research Institute and Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.13, no.1, 2021 , pp. 12-23 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose. The aim of the study was to compare the lingualized implant placement creating a buccal cantilever with prosthetic-driven implant placement exhibiting excessive crown-to-implant ratio. Materials and Methods. Based on patient's CT scan data, two finite element models were created. Both models were composed of the severely resorbed posterior mandible with first premolar and second molar and missing second premolar and first molar, a two-unit prosthesis supported by two implants. The differences were in implants position and crown-to-implant ratio; lingualized implants creating lingually overcontoured prosthesis (Model CP2) and prosthetic-driven implants creating an excessive crown-to-implant ratio (Model PD2). A screw preload of 466.4 N and a buccal occlusal load of 262 N were applied. The contacts between the implant components were set to a frictional contact with a friction coefficient of 0.3. The maximum von Mises stress and strain and maximum equivalent plastic strain were analyzed and compared, as well as volumes of the materials under specified stress and strain ranges. Results. The results revealed that the highest maximum von Mises stress in each model was 1091 MPa for CP2 and 1085 MPa for PD2. In the cortical bone, CP2 showed a lower peak stress and a similar peak strain. Besides, volume calculation confirmed that CP2 presented lower volumes undergoing stress and strain. The stresses in implant components were slightly lower in value in PD2. However, CP2 exhibited a noticeably higher plastic strain. CONCLUSION. Prosthetic-driven implant placement might biomechanically be more advantageous than bone quantity-based implant placement that creates a buccal cantilever.
Keywords
Dental prosthesis, Implant-supported; Bone resorption; Dental stress analysis; Finite element analysis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Influence of marginal bone resorption on stress around an implant-a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:279-86.   DOI
2 Sayyedi A, Rashidpour M, Fayyaz A, Ahmadian N, Dehghan M, Faghani F, Fasihg P. Comparison of stress distribution in alveolar bone with different implant diameters and vertical cantilever length via the finite element method. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2019; 29:37-43.   DOI
3 Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC, Brehnan K, Walsh EK, Holbrook WB. Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:443-9.   DOI
4 The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:e1-105.
5 Halg GA, Schmid J, Hammerle CH. Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:983-90.   DOI
6 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.
7 Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, Mattheos N. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:175-84.
8 Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:303-11.   DOI
9 Palmer RM, Howe LC, Palmer PJ, Wilson R. A prospective clinical trial of single Astra Tech 4.0 or 5.0 diameter implants used to support two-unit cantilever bridges: results after 3 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:35-40.   DOI
10 Wennstrom J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Lindhe J. Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:1077-83.   DOI
11 Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A. The prognosis of partial implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers. A 5-year retrospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol 2013;6:51-9.
12 Zhong J, Guazzato M, Chen J, Zhang Z, Sun G, Huo X, Liu X, Ahmad R, Li Q. Effect of different implant configurations on biomechanical behavior of full-arch implant-supported mandibular monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses. J Mech Behav Biomed 2020;102:103490.   DOI
13 Park JM, Kim HJ, Park EJ, Kim MR, Kim SJ. Three dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution around the mandibular posterior implant during non-working movement according to the amount of cantilever. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:361-71.   DOI
14 Cassel B, Dan L, Dan K. Deflections of an implant-supported cantilever beam subjected to vertically directed loads. In vitro measurements in three dimensions using an optoelectronic method. II Analysis of methodological errors. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:645-50.   DOI
15 Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Güth 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.   DOI
16 O'Mahony AM, Williams JL, Spencer P. Anisotropic elasticity of cortical and cancellous bone in the posterior mandible increases peri-implant stress and strain under oblique loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:648-57.   DOI
17 Almeida PJ, Silva CL, Alves JL, Silva FS, Martins RC, Fernandes JS. Comparative analysis of the wear of titanium/titanium and titanium/zirconia interfaces in implant/abutment assemblies after thermocycling and mechanical loading. Rev Port Estomatol Cir Maxilofac 2016;57:207-14.
18 Schwartz-Dabney C, Dechow P. Edentulation alters material properties of cortical bone in the human mandible. J Dent Res 2002;81:613-7.   DOI
19 O'Mahony AM, Williams JL, Katz JO, Spencer P. Anisotropic elastic properties of cancellous bone from a human edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:415-21.   DOI
20 Romeo E, Tomasi C, Finini I, Casentini P, Lops D. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prosthesis in partially edentulous jaws: a cohort prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1278-85.   DOI
21 Rosen A, Gynther G. Implant treatment without bone grafting in edentulous severely resorbed maxillas: a long-term follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1010-6.   DOI
22 Zurdo J, Romao C, Wennstrom JL. Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:59-66.   DOI
23 Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:39-49.   DOI
24 Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16: 26-35.   DOI
25 Brosky ME, Korioth TW, Hodges J. The anterior cantilever in the implant-supported screw-retained mandibular prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:244-9.   DOI
26 Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:313-23.
27 Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1-21.
28 DeTolla DH, Andreana S, Patra A, Buhite R, Comella B. Role of the finite element model in dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2000;26:77-81.   DOI
29 Trivedi S. Finite element analysis: A boon to dentistry. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2014;4:200-3.   DOI
30 Dong L, Deshpande V, Wadley H. Mechanical response of Ti-6Al-4V octet-truss lattice structures. Int J Solids Struct 2015;60-61:107-24.   DOI
31 Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98.   DOI
32 Xu HH, Smith DT, Jahanmir S, Romberg E, Kelly JR, Thompson VP, Rekow ED. Indentation damage and mechanical properties of human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1998;77:472-80.   DOI
33 Wataha JC. Alloys for prosthodontic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:351-63.   DOI
34 Nejatidanesh F, Shakibamehr AH, Savabi O. Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM and conventional cement retained implant-supported single crowns. Implant Dent 2016;25:103-8.   DOI
35 Saskalauskaite E, Tam LE, McComb D. Flexural strength, elastic modulus, and pH profile of self-etch resin luting cements. J Prosthodont 2008;17:262-8.   DOI
36 Lanza A, Aversa R, Rengo S, Apicella D, Apicella A. 3D FEA of cemented steel, glass and carbon posts in a maxillary incisor. Dent Mater 2005;21:709-15.   DOI
37 Teixeira E, Sato Y, Akagawa Y, Shindoi N. A comparative evaluation of mandibular finite element models with different lengths and elements for implant biomechanics. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:299-303.   DOI
38 Coolidge ED. The thickness of the human periodontal membrane. J Am Dent Assoc 1937;24:1260-70.
39 Chen XY, Zhang CY, Nie EM, Zhang MC. Treatment planning of implants when 3 mandibular posterior teeth are missing: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Implant Dent 2012;21:340-3.   DOI
40 Mandel U, Dalgaard P, Viidik A. A biomechanical study of the human periodontal ligament. J Biomech 1986; 19:637-45.   DOI
41 Huang HL, Huang JS, Ko CC, Hsu JT, Chang CH, Chen MY. Effects of splinted prosthesis supported a wide implant or two implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:466-72.   DOI
42 Brunski JB. Biomechanical factors affecting the bone-dental implant interface. Clin Mater 1992;10:153-201.   DOI
43 Robling AG, Castillo AB, Turner CH. Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2006;8:455-98.   DOI
44 Saidin S, Abdul Kadir MR, Sulaiman E, Abu Kasim NH. Effects of different implant-abutment connections on micromotion and stress distribution: prediction of microgap formation. J Dent 2012;40:467-74.   DOI
45 Wu T, Liao W, Dai N, Tang C. Design of a custom angled abutment for dental implants using computer-aided design and nonlinear finite element analysis. J Biomech 2010;43:1941-6.   DOI
46 Sotto-Maior BS, Senna PM, da Silva WJ, Rocha EP, Del Bel Cury AA. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio, retention system, restorative material, and occlusal loading on stress concentrations in single short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:e13-8.
47 Martin WC, Woody RD, Miller BH, Miller AW. Implant abutment screw rotations and preloads for four different screw materials and surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:24-32.   DOI
48 Bolukbasi N, Yeniyol S. Number and localization of the implants for the fixed prosthetic reconstructions: on the strain in the anterior maxillary region. Med Eng Phys 2015;37:431-45.   DOI
49 Gonda T, Yasuda D, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. Biomechanical factors associated with mandibular cantilevers: analysis with three-dimensional finite element models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:e275-82.   DOI
50 Cenkoglu BG, Balcioglu NB, Ozdemir T, Mijiritsky E. The effect of the length and distribution of implants for fixed prosthetic reconstructions in the atrophic posterior maxilla: a finite element analysis. Materials (Basel) 2019;12:2556.   DOI