Stress analysis of a single prosthesis on a poorly positioned implant
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i11.19815Keywords:
Dental implants; Finite Element Analysis; Prosthodontics.Abstract
The mechanical positioning behavior of a mal-positioned implant was evaluated in the finite element method. Models were created in SolidWorks Professional 2013® software with a single implant rehabilitation. The following were analyzed: Control Group, crown aligned to the implant long axis; Experimental Group, crown shifted 3 mm mesial proximally to the implant axis. Compressive stresses in cortical and medullary bone, and Von Mises stresses in implants and components were evaluated. With 100 N occlusal loading at 5 points. The peak von Mises stresses in the prosthetic screw of the experimental group (138.45 MPa) were 43.60% higher compared to the control group (96.41 MPa). The stresses in the prosthetic pillar were localized in the abutment region and the experimental group showed (875.63 MPa), 28% higher than the control group (683.88 MPa). Regarding the implant, the maximum stress peaks were located in the implant platform and the experimental group showed stress values of (1081.4) MPa and was 26.42% higher than the control 855.39 MPa. The cortical bone tissue of the experimental group showed shear stress values 10.81% higher than the control. The stress values were 151.36 MPa for the experimental group and (136.59 Mpa) for the control. The medullary bone showed shear stress (8.31 MPa) and was 12.29% higher than the control (7.40 MPa). A maximum peak was obtained in the cervical region of the medullary bone, adjacent to the cortical bone. The experimental group with a mal-positioned implant showed the highest maximum stresses for all simulated prosthetic components.
References
Aglietta, M., Blasi, A., & Salvi, G. E. (2012). Clinical and radiographic changes at implants supporting single-unit crowns ( SCs ) and fixed dental prostheses ( FDPs ) with one cantilever extension . A retrospective study. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02391.x
Alom, G., Kwon, H. B., Lim, Y. J., & Kim, M. J. (2021). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of buccally cantilevered implant-supported prostheses in a severely resorbed mandible. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, 13(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.1.12
Camargo, B., Drummond, L., Ozkomur, A., Villarinho, E., Rockenbach, M., Teixeira, E., & Shinkai, R. (2018). Implant Inclination and Cantilever Length Are Not Associated with Bone Loss in Fixed Complete Dentures: A Prospective Study. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 32(1), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6022
da Silva, E., dos Santos, D., Sonego, M., Gomes, J., Pellizzer, E., & Goiato, M. (2018). Does the Presence of a Cantilever Influence the Survival and Success of Partial Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 33(4), 815–823. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6413
Desai, S. R., Desai, M. S., Katti, G., & Karthikeyan, I. (2015). Evaluation of design parameters of eight dental implant designs : A two ‑ dimensional finite element analysis. June. https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.97308
Drago, C. (2016). Cantilever Lengths and Anterior-Posterior Spreads of Interim , Acrylic Resin , Full-Arch Screw-Retained Prostheses and Their Relationship to Prosthetic Complications. 00, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12426
Filius, M. A. P., Vissink, A., Cune, M. S., Raghoebar, G. M., & Visser, A. (2018). Effect of implant therapy on oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-49), health status (SF-36), and satisfaction of patients with several agenetic teeth: Prospective cohort study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 20(4), 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12625
Greenstein, G., & Cavallaro JR, J. (2010). ABSTRACT. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 141(10), 1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0049
Halg, G. A., Schmid, J., & Hammerle, C. H. F. (2008). Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01556.x
Hasan, I., Heinemann, F., & Bourauel, C. (2014). Biomechanical finite element analysis of self-tapping implants with different dimensions inserted in two bone qualities. 59(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2013-0109
Huang, Y., & Wang, J. (2019). Mechanism of and factors associated with the loosening of the implant abutment screw: A review. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 31(4), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12494
Manea, A., Bran, S., Dinu, C., Rotaru, H., Barbur, I., Crisan, B., Armencea, G., Onisor, F., Lazar, M., Ostas, D., Baciut, M., Vacaras, S., Mitre, I., Crisan, L., Muresan, O., Roman, R., & Baciut, G. (2019). Principles of biomechanics in oral implantology. Medicine and Pharmacy Reports, 92(3), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.15386/MPR-1512
Max, A., Walter, C., Ehbauer, S., Zwiener, I., Ziebart, T., Al-nawas, B., & Oliver, M. (2015). Analysis of implant-failure predictors in the posterior maxilla : A retrospective study of 1395 implants. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.01.004
Mosavar, A., Ziaei, A., & Kadkhodaei, M. (2015). The Effect of Implant Thread Design on Stress Distribution in Anisotropic Bone with Different Osseointegration Conditions : 1317–1326. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4091
Muangsisied, S., Chantarapanich, N., Veerasakul, M. S., & Inglam, S. (2021). Effect of implant diameter and cortical bone thickness on biomechanical performance of short dental implant-supported distal cantilever: A finite element study. Engineering Journal, 25(2), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2021.25.2.175
Ozan, O., & Kurtulmus-Yilmaz, S. (2018). Biomechanical Comparison of Different Implant Inclinations and Cantilever Lengths in All-on-4 Treatment Concept by Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 33(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6201
Papaspyridakos, P., Bordin, T. B., Kim, Y. J., El-Rafie, K., Pagni, S. E., Natto, Z. S., Teixeira, E. R., Chochlidakis, K., & Weber, H. P. (2020). Technical Complications and Prosthesis Survival Rates with Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Study with 1- to 12-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Prosthodontics, 29(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13119
Pjetursson, B. E., Bra, U., Lang, N. P., & Zwahlen, M. (2007). Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses ( FDPs ) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns ( SCs ). 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x
Premnath, D. K., Prakash, D. N., Tilak, D. B., R, D. K., MP, D. S., & Rheel, D. S. A. (2020). Evaluation of surrounding anatomical structures in implant supported FPD with and without cantilever: An original research. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences, 6(4), 289–291. https://doi.org/10.22271/oral.2020.v6.i4e.1078
Quirynen, T., Quirynen, M., & Duyck, J. (2015). Prevention of distal extension cantilever fracture in mandibular overdentures . Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.007
Ramos, B., Albrektsson, T., & Wennerberg, A. (2014). ScienceDirect Tilted versus axially placed dental implants : A meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.002
Rodrigues, I., Zanardi, P., & Sesma, N. (2019). Effect of Abutment Screw Design and Crown/Implant Ratio on Preload Maintenance of Single-Crown Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Prostheses. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 34(6), 1397–1403. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7311
Sargolzaie, N., Moeintaghavi, A., & Shojaie, H. (2017). Comparing the Quality of Life of Patients Requesting Dental Implants Before and After Implant. The Open Dentistry Journal, 11(1), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601711010485
Schmid, E., Morandini, M., Roccuzzo, A., Ramseier, C. A., Sculean, A., & Salvi, G. E. (2020). Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension. A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of at least 10 years. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 31(12), 1243–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13672
Storelli, S., Del Fabbro, M., Scanferla, M., Palandrani, G., & Romeo, E. (2018). Implant supported cantilevered fixed dental rehabilitations in partially edentulous patients: Systematic review of the literature. Part I. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29(May), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13311
Suedam, V., Tobias, R., Neto, M., Antonio, E., Sousa, C., Rubo, J. H., Rq, J., Shul, W. K. H., Duhd, L., Fdqwlohyhuhg, R. I., Vxssruwhg, L., Sduwldo, H. G., Wr, D., Rffoxvdo, W. K. H., Ri, V., Fldo, D., & Lv, W. (2016). on the stress distribution in peri-implant area RI FDQWLOHYHUHG LPSODQW VXSSRUWHG ¿[ HG SDUWLDO dentures. 6(2013), 114–120.
Tang, C., Liu, S., Zhou, G., Yu, J., Zhang, G., Bao, Y., & Wang, Q. (2012). Nonlinear finite element analysis of three implant – abutment interface designs. April, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2012.35
Torrecillas-martinez, L., Monje, A., Catalunya, U. I. De, Lin, G., & Francisco, S. (2014). Effect of Cantilevers for Implant-Supported Prostheses. August. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3660
Zheng, Z., Lin, J., Shinya, A., Matinlinna, J. P., Botelho, M. G., & Shinya, A. (2012). Finite element analysis to compare stress distribution of gold alloy, lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic and zirconia based fixed partial denture. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, 3(4), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2012.00167.x
Zurdo, J., Wennstro, J. L., & Roma, C. (2009). Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers : a systematic review. 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01773.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Francisco Carlos dos Santos Reis; William Cunha Brandt; Letícia Cristina Cidreira Boaro; Milton Edson Miranda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.