Comparison of Implant Systems Applied in the Mental Region in the Prosthetic Treatment of Atrophic Mandible: A 3D Finite Element Analysis

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to compare five implant-supported rehabilitation concepts of an edentulous mandible and determines the most biomechanically advantageous technique. Materials and methods Five models with implants in different configurations were created: All-on-4 concept (two anterior axial and two posterior distally curved implants), All-on-4v4 concept (four distal curved interforaminal implants), All-on-4W (two anterior mesial curved interforaminal implants and two posterior distally curved implants), the All-on-3 concept (one anterior axial and two posterior distally curved implants), and the treofil system (three interforaminal implants with titanium bar guide support). For this study, bone-level (4.3 × 13 mm) implants of Nobel Biocare and implants of the treofil system (5 × 13 mm) were used. Spherical loads were applied from the canine and molar regions to evaluate the tension, compression and von Mises stresses by applying 3D finite element analysis. Results Among the alternative concepts, treofil system were the most successful treatment option in biomechanical terms. On the other hand, All-on-3 concept was found to be the last method of choice. This was because of the high stresses on cortical and trabecular bones in most conditions. Conclusion The result of this study shows that the treophylline system is the most successful treatment option despite its technical details. Alternatively, classical All-on-4 and All-on-4v4 techniques are biomechanically successful treatment options.

Keywords

• alveolar bone atrophy
• dental implants
• edentulous jaw
• implant-supported prothesis
• finite element analysis

References

1. 1. Enlow DH, Bianco HJ, Eklund S. The remodeling of the edentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent.1976; 36: 685–693.
2. 2. Saglam AA. The vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones in panoramic radiographs of dentate and edentulous subjects. Quintessence Int.2002; 33: 433–438.
3. 3. Branemark PI, Svensson B, van Steenberghe D. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6: 227–231.
4. 4. de NDFJ, Pecorari VGA, Martins CB, Del Fabbro M, Casati MZ. Short implants versus bone augmentation in combination with standard-length implants in posterior atrophic partially edentulous mandibles: systematic review and meta-analysis with the Bayesian approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2018; 48(1): 90–96.
5. 5. Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G. Short implants (6 mm) vs. vertical bone augmentation and standard-length implants (>9mm) in atrophic posterior mandibles: a 5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2017; 46: 1607–1614.
6. 6. Engstrand P, Grondahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Nannmark U, Branemark PI. Prospective follow-up study of 95 patients with edentulous mandibles treated according to the Branemark Novum concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.2003; 5:3-10.
7. 7. Branemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Grondahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, et al. Branemark Novum: a new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.1999; 1:2-16.
8. 8. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediatefunction concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 5(Suppl. 1).2003; : 2–9.

9. 9. Jensen OT, Adams MW. All-on-4 treatment of highly atrophic mandible with mandibular V-4: report of 2 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2009; 67: 1503–1509.
10. 10. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindström H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2000; 15:405–14.
11. 11. Ayna M, Gülses A, Acil Y. A comparative study on 7-year results of “All-on-Four™” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous mandibles: metal-ceramic vs. bar-retained superstructures. Odontology.2018; 106:73–82.
12. 12. Soto-Penaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent.2017; 9:e474–88.
13. 13. Ayna M, Sagheb K, Gutwald R, Wieker H, Flörke C, Açil Y, Gülses A. A clinical study on the 6-year outcomes of immediately loaded three implants for completely edentulous mandibles:“the all-on-3 concept”. Odontology.2020; 108(1):133-142.
14. 14. Andrea E Borgonovo, Simone LM Galbiati, Dino Re. Trefoil System for the Treatment of Mandibular Edentulism: A Case Report with 30 Months Follow-Up. Case Reports in Dentistry 6.2020; https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8845649
15. 15. Cicciù M, Cervino G, Terranova A, et al. Prosthetic and mechanical parameters of the facial bone under the load of different dental implant shapes: a parametric study. Prosthesis.2019; 1: 41–53.
16. 16. Van Staden RC, Guan H, Loo YC. Application of the finite element method in dental implant research. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2006; 9: 257–270.
17. 17. Al-Sukhun J, Kelleway J. Biomechanics of the mandible: Part II. Development of a 3-dimensional finite element model to study mandibular functional deformation in subjects treated with dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2007; 22: 455–466.
18. 18. Heydecke G, Zwahlen M, Nicol A, et al. What is the optimal number of implants for fixed reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants.2012; Res 23(Suppl. 6): 217–228.
19. 19. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Weinlander M, Krennmair S, Piehslinger E. Clinical outcome and peri-implant findings of four-implant-supported distal cantilevered fixed mandibular prostheses: five-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2013; 28: 831–840.
20. 20. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi SF, Bidra AS. A 30-year follow-up of a patient with mandibular complete-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis on 4 implants: a clinical report. J Prosthodont.2019; 28: 97–102.
21. 21. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl.1977; 16: 1-132.
22. 22. Chan MH, Holmes C. Contemporary “All-on-4” concept. Dent Clin North Am.2015; 59: 421–470.
23. 23. 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: 51–59.
24. 24. Torrecillas-Martinez L, Monje A, Lin GH, et al. Effect of cantilevers for implant-supported prostheses on marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2014; 29: 1315–1321.
25. 25. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc.2011; 142: 310–320.
26. 26. Soto-Penaloza D, Zaragozi-Alonso R, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent.2017; 9: e474–e488.
27. 27. Ozan O, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S. Biomechanical comparison of different implant inclinations and cantilever lengths in all-on-4 treatment concept by three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2018; 33: 64–71.
28. 28. M. Menini, F. Bagnasco, P. Pera, T. Tealdo, and P. Pesce. “Brånemark Novum immediate loading rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles: case series with a 16-year follow-up,” The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry.2019; vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 729–735
29. 29. Primo BT, Mezzari LM, da Fontoura Frasca LC, Linderman R, Rivaldo EG.Clinical and radiographic assessment of threeimplant-supported fixed-prosthesis rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: immediate versus delayed loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2018; 33:653–60.