Evaluation of the biomechanical behavior of two supported implant prosthetic designs
Finite element analysis
Introduction: problem statement: different alternatives as fixed and removable rehabilitation exist. However, there are few studies available that analyze the behavior of these prostheses with control of the biological variables such as bone type, location, and type of implants. The objective of this study was to analyze the biomechanical behavior of two mandibular prosthesis designs supported on four implants and the adjacent biological zones.
Materials and methods: two mandibular prosthetic designs were modeled on 4 Zimmer TSV implants (Zimmer Biomet) in a bone with type D2 characteristics (Misch) assuming a 75% osseointegration. The first design was an overdenture (OD) with an internal CrCoreinforcing bar, retained with Locator adjustments (Zest Anchors), the second design was a metal-acrylic hybrid (HP) prosthesis in which instead of using the CAD bar / CAM splinting the implants, an internal reinforcing bar was designed in CrCo, the load applied in each model was 400N distributed throughout the prosthesis.
Results: the efforts were concentrated mainly in the crestal portion of the peri-implant bone in both designs, the efforts in the trabecular portion were minimal, in the peri-implant bone the greatest effort was presented in OD 20,643 MPa, in the HP design was 11,823 MPa, the efforts in implants were 67.8 MPa, greater in HP than in OD 52,613 and in the prosthesis the greatest effort was presented in HP; (56,046 MPa compared to 41,518 MPa in OD).
Conclusions: the functioning of the designs is not the same and they transmit different stresses, but neither of them compromises the biological or prosthetic structures evaluated.
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Nacional de Odontología
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal Revista Nacional de Odontologia before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
. Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: Consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont. 2000 Mar 1;9(1):37–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00037.x.
. Sun X, Zhai J-J, Liao J, Teng M-H, Tian A, Liang X. Masticatory efficiency and oral health-related quality of life with implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Saudi Med J. 2014 Oct;35(10):1195–202.
. Cicci M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Gudice G Lo, Scappaticci L, et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: Evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med. 2015;2015:943839. doi: 10.1155/2015/943839. Epub 2015 Dec 21.
. Ferreira MB, Barão VA, Faverani LP, Hipólito AC, Assunção WG. The role of superstructure material on the stress distribution in mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures. A CT-based 3D-FEA. Mater Sci Eng C. 2014;35(1):92–9. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.10.022. Epub 2013 Oct 31
.
. Coelho LFB, Broilo JR, Sartori EA, Mariano LOH, Geremia T, Barcellos L, et al. Stress Distribution Study Using the Finite Element Method in Three Different Implant-Supported Fixed Complete-Arch Mandibular Prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):299–302. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4427.
. Weinländer M, Piehslinger E, Krennmair G. Removable implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: five-year results of different prosthetic anchorage concepts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan;25(3):589–97.
. Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni W V. Comparison of retention and stability of two implant-retained overdentures based on implant location. J Prosthet Dent.2014 ;112(3):515–21. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.003. Epub 2014 May 10.
.Nischal K, Chowdhary R. Early loaded single implant reinforced mandibular overdenture. Case Rep Dent. 2016;2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/4213753. Epub 2016 Jun 14
. Şahin S, Çehreli MC, Yalçin E. The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses - A review. J Dent. 2002;30(7–8):271–82. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(02)00065-9.
. Schenk RK, Buser D. Osseointegration : a reality. Periodontol 2000. 1998;17:22–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00120.x.
. Takahashi T, Gonda T, Maeda Y. Effects of Reinforcement on Denture Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: An In Vitro Study Under Various Implant Configurations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(6):e162–e167. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4711.
. Kurniawan D, Nor FM, Lee HY, Lim JY. Finite element analysis of bone-implant biomechanics: Refinement through featuring various osseointegration conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(9):1090–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.12.026.
. Niinomi N. Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys. Mater Sci Eng A Struct Mater. 1998;15,243(1–2), 231–6.
. Rodríguez-Lopez MA, Giraldo-Gómez SD, Latorre-Correa F, Villarraga-Ossa JA, Diosa-Peña JG. Evaluación de la distribución de esfuerzos de una restauración inmediata implantosoportada en tres fases de cicatrización. Análisis de elementos finitos. Rev Nac Odontol. 2019;15(28):1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.16925/2357-4607.2019.01.06
. Lin D., Li O., Li W., Swain M. Dental implant induced bone remodeling and associatedalgorithms. J Mech behav biomed mat, 2, 410-432, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.11.007.
. Arenas-Chavarria MA, Giraldo-Gómez SD, Latorre-Correa F, Villarraga-Ossa JA. Evaluación del comportamiento del sistema de ajuste locator asociado con una prótesis parcial removible, análisis de elementos finitos. Rev Estomatol. 2017; 25(2):10-16. DOI: 10.25100/re.v25i2.6485
. Tanino F, Hayakawa I, Hirano S, Minakuchi S. Finite element analysis of stress-breaking attachments on maxillary implant-retained overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(2):193–8.
. Barão VAR, Delben JA, Lima J, Cabral T, Assunção WG. Comparison of different designs of implant-retained overdentures and fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis on stress distribution in edentulous mandible - A computed tomography-based three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech. 2013;46(7):1312–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.02.008.
.Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: Design considerations. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Jul;78(1):28–33. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70084-
. Alvarez-Arenal A, Brizuela-Velasco A, DeLlanos-Lanchares H, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I. Should oral implants be splinted in a mandibular implant-supported fixed complete denture? A 3-dimensional-model finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):508–14. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.004.Epub 2014 Feb 21.
. Kasani R, Rama SAP,Dommeti VK, Merdji A,Biswas JK,Roy S. Stress distribution of overdenture using odd number implants – A Finite Element Study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;98:369-382. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.06.030.Epub 2019 Jul 2
. Ramadan Rania E,Mohamed FS. Retention of mandibular implant-retained overdentures with two different attachment : An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(5):738e1-738e6. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.009.
. Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Gironi Carnevale UA, Lanza M, Lanza. The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019 ;63(1):15-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.08.006.
. Hopp M, de Araujo Nobre M, Malo P. Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success between axial and tilted implants in maxillary All-on-4 treatmentconcept rehabilitations after 5 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(5):849-859. doi: 10.1111/cid.12526 .
. Maló P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Botto J. The All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(4):565-577. doi: 10.1111/cid.12769.
. Maló P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Nunes M. The All-on-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: A longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(4):538-549. doi: 10.1111/cid.12771
. Maló P, Lopes A, de Araujo Nobre M, Ferro A. Immediate function dental implants inserted with less than 30N.cm of torque in full-arch maxillary rehabilitations using the All-on-4 concept: retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(8):1079-1085. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.04.008.
. Klineberg IJ, Trulsson M, Murray GM. Occlusion on implants - is there a problem? J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(7):522–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02305.x.
. Cano- sanchez, J.; Campo- Trapero J. S-GJ. B-M a. Mecanobiología de los huesos maxilares. II. Remodelación ósea. Av En Odontoestomatoogia. 2008;24(2):177–86.
. Quirynen M, Pauwels M, Van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Alsaadi G, Naert I, et al. Microbiological and clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction for two treatment options in the edentulous lower jaw after 10 years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(3):277–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01127.x.
