• 구강회복응용과학지
• /
• 제17권4호
• /
• pp.283-305
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of condylar regions and edentulous mandible with implant-supported cantilever prostheses on the certain conditions, such as amount of load, location of load, direction of load, fixation or non-fixation on the condylar regions. Three dimensional finite element analysis was used for this study. FEM model was created by using commercial software, ANSYS(Swanson, Inc., U.S.A.). Fixed model which was fixed on the condylar regions was modeled with 74323 elements and 15387 nodes and spring model which was sprung on the condylar regions was modeled with 75020 elements and 15887 nodes. Six Br${\aa}$nemark implants with 3.75 mm diameter and 13 mm length were incorporated in the models. The placement was 4.4 mm from the midline for the first implant; the other two in each quardrant were 6.5 mm apart. The stress distribution on each model through the designed mandible was evaluated under 500N vertical load, 250N horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree 250N oblique load and buccal 45 degree 250N oblique load. The load points were at 0 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm along the cantilever prostheses from the center of the distal fixture. The results were as follows; 1. The stress distribution of condylar regions between two models showed conspicuous differences. Fixed model showed conspicuous stress concentration on the condylar regions than spring model under vertical load only. On the other hand, spring model showed conspicuous stress concentration on the condylar regions than fixed model under 250N horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree 250N oblique load and buccal 45 degree 250N oblique load. 2. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior and mesial side of working and balancing condylar necks but spring model showed stress concentration on the posterior and mesial side of working condylar neck and the posterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under vertical load. 3. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior and lateral side of working condylar neck and the anterior and mesial side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior sides of working and balancing condylar necks under horizontal load linguobuccally. 4. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior side of working condylar neck and the posterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior side of working condylar neck and the anterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under buccal 20 degree oblique load. 5. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the anterior and lateral side of working condylar neck and the posterior and mesial side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior side of working condylar neck and the anterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under buccal 45 degree oblique load.. 6. The stress distribution of bone around implants between two models revealed difference slightly. In general, magnitude of Von Mises stress was the greatest at the bone around the most distal implant and the progressive decrease more and more mesially. Under vertical load, the stress values were similar between implant neck and superstructure vertically, besides the greatest on the distal side horizontally. 7. Under horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree oblique load and buccal 45 degree oblique load, the stress values were the greatest on the implant neck vertically, and great on the labial and lingual sides horizontally. After all, it was considered that spring model was an indispensable condition for the comprehension of the stress distributions of condylar regions.