In vitro stress distribution evaluation of different prosthesis Designs supported by anterıorly located Implants in mandibular edentuolus cases

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the stress transmitted to the peri-implant region and implants by an anterior fixed implant supported restoration with a precision partial denture posteriorly combined prothesis and to compare with bar and ball retained overdenture using finite element stress analysis. Materials and Methods: In our study we prepared three, three dimentional finite element models created on four implants, consisting of one distal extension mandibular removable partial denture connected to an anterior fixed implant supported prosthesis, one ball retained and one bar retained mandibular overdenture prothesis. 100 N vertical and 100 N oblique force were applied on the first mandibular molar teeth for each model. The stress were analysed by using the finite element stress analysis. Results: The results of our study show us that the amount of stress on peri-implant bone and implants were higher and the amount of stress on cortical bone under mucosa were lower for distal extension mandibular removable partial denture connected to an anterior fixed implant-supported prosthesis than bar and ball retained overdenture. The difference between stated prostheses were quite low when interpreted as MPa. Conclusion: A design of anterior fixed implant supported prosthesis combined with removable precision partial denture has a relatively lower degree of anterior bone resorption and may be a good alternative treatment choice instead of bar and ball retained overdenture for patients with posterior knife edge alveolar ridge

Keywords

• Dental implants, removable precision partial denture, combined prostheses, overdenture, ball attachment, bar attachment, finite element stress analysis

ALT ÇENE TAM DİŞSİZLİK OLGULARINDA ANTERİOR BÖLGEYE YERLEŞTİRİLEN İMPLANTLAR ÜZERİNE UYGULANAN FARKLI PROTEZ TASARIMLARININ İN VİTRO OLARAK KUVVET DAĞILIMI YÖNÜNDEN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Amaç: Maksiler ve mandibuler posterior bölgelerdeki sınırlamalar nedeniyle ancak anterior bölgede uygulanabilen implantlardan destek alınarak yapılan sabit protezlere hassas tutucularla bağlanan posterior hareketli bölümlü protezlerin kombine protezler , implantlar ve kemikte oluşturdukları stresleri, sonlu elemanlar stres analiz yöntemi kullanılarak top başlı ve bar tutuculu overdenture tarzı protezlerle karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Tam dişsiz mandibulada dört adet implant üzerine yapılan implant üstü sabit bir proteze hassas tutucularla bağlanan posterior hareketli bölümlü protez, top başlı ve bar ataçmanlı overdenture tarzı protez olmak üzere üç adet modeller üç boyutlu olarak tasarlanmış ve her bir modele 1. molar dişin merkezinden 100 N vertikal ve 100 N oblik kuvvet uygulanmıştır. Oluşan stresler, sonlu elemanlar stres analiz yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular: İmplant üstü sabit bir proteze hassas tutucularla bağlanan posterior hareketli bölümlü protezde, top başlı ve bar tutuculu protezlere göre, implant ve peri-implant kemikte stresler daha yüksek, mukoza altındaki kortikal kemikte ise stresler daha düşük bulunmuştur. Aradaki farklar MPa cinsinden değerlendirildiğinde oldukça düşüktür. Sonuç: Anterior implant üstü sabit bir proteze hassas tutucularla bağlanan posterior hareketli bölümlü protez tasarımının, özellikle anterior bölgede kemik rezorpsiyonunun fazla olmadığı ve posterior bölgede ise bıçak sırtı kretlere sahip hastalarda top başlı ve bar tutuculu overdenture protezlere iyi bir alternatif tedavi seçeneği olarak kullanabileceği söylenebilir

Keywords

• Dental implant, hassas tutuculu hareketli bölümlü protez, kombine protezler, overdenture, top başlı ataçman, bar ataçman, sonlu elemanlar stres analiz yöntemi

References

1. Chun HJ, Park DN, Han CH, Heo SJ, Heo MS, Koak JY. Stress distributions in max- illary bone surrounding overdenture im- plants with different overdenture attach- ments. J. Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 193- 205.
2. Bueno-Samper A, Hernandez-Aliaga M., Calvo-Guirado JL. The implant supported milled bar overdenture: A literature re- view. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2010; 15: 375-378.
3. Jivraj S, Chee W, Corrado P. Treatment planning of the edentulous maxilla. Brit- ish Dental Journal 2006; 201(5): 261-279.
4. Mericske-Stern R, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin. Oral Impl. Res 2000; 11(1): 108-125.
5. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cro- nin RJ. Retention characteristics of at- tachment systems for implant overden- ture. J.Prosthodont 2004; 13: 221-226.
6. Pasciuta M, Grossman Y, Finger IM. A prosthetic solution to restoring the eden- tulous mandible with limited interarch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: A clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent 2005; 93: 116-120.
7. Pellecchia M, Pellecchia R, Emtiaz S. Distal extension mandibular removable partial denture connected to an anterior fixed implantsupported prosthesis. J. Prosthet. Dent 2000; 83(6): 607-12.
8. Starr NL. The distal extension case: an al- ternative restorative design for implant prosthetics. The Int. J. Periodon- tics&Restorative Dentistry 2001; 21(1): 61- 67.

9. Chronopoulos V, Sarafianou A, Kourtis S. The use of dental implants in combina- tion with removable partial dentures. A Case Report. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008; 20: 355–365.
10. Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular implant-retained overden- ture: Finite element analysis of two an- chorage systems. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2008; 13: 369-376.
11. Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G. Tooth-implant connection: some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 334-341.
12. Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kilicarslan MA, Eskitascioglu G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2005; 93(3): 227-34.
13. Barao VA, Assunça WG, Tabata L.F, Delben JA, Gomes EA, De Sousa EA, Rocha EP. Finite element analysis to compare complete denture and implant- retained overdentures with different at- tachment systems. J. Craniofac. Surg. Jul 2009; 20(4): 1066-71.
14. Geng JP, Tan KBC, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant den- tistry: A review of the literature. J Pros- thet Dent 2001; 85: 585-98.
15. Miyaura K, Morita M, Matsuka Y, Yam- ashita A, Watanabe T. Rehabilitation of biting abilities in patients with different types of dental prosthesis. J. Oral Rehabil 2000; 27(12): 1073-1076.
16. Prakash V, Desouza M, Adhikari R. A comparison of stres distribution and flex- ion among various designs of bar attach- ments for implant overdentures: A three dimensional finite element analysis. Indi- an J. Dent. Res 2009; 20(1): 31-36.
17. Meijer HJA, Starmans FJM, Steen WHA, Bosman F. Loading conditions of endos- seous implants in an edentulous human mandible: A three-dimensional, finite- element study . J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23(11): 757-763.
18. Mahshid M, Geramy A, Ejlali M, Monfa- red MS, Abad SRH. Effect of the number of the implants on stress distribution of anterior implant-supported fixed prothe- ses combined with a removable partial denture: A finite element analysis. Jour- nal of Dentistry, Tahran University of Medical Science 2014; 3:11