ALT ÇENE ÜÇ İMPLANT DESTEKLİ PROTEZLERDE, KANTİLEVER VARLIĞININ İMPLANTLAR ÜZERİNE GELEN STRES DAĞILIMINA ETKİSİ

Year 2011, Volume: 45 Issue: 2, 9 - 17, 29.11.2011

Erkan Sancaklı Emre Mumcu Onur Geçkili Ayşen Nekora Azak

Abstract

Tam dişsiz çenelerin protetik tedavilerinde implant uygulamaları çok sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Alt çene total dişsizlik
vakalarında interforaminalar bölgesine uygulanan çeşitli sayıda implant üzeri barlı overdenture'lar da bir tedavi alternatifidir.
Yapılan implant üstü barlı overdenture protezlerde kullanılacak implant sayısı ve barların distal uzantılarının olup olmaması
üzerine hala tam bir görüş birliği yoktur. Çalışmamızda, interforaminal bölgeye 3 adet implant yerleştirilerek yapılan implant
üzeri protezlerde, distal uzantılı ve distal uzantısız barlı protezlerin ve sayılarının, implant kemik ara yüzeyindeki stres
dağılımına etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlandı. Çalışmamızda 3 adet implant üzerine 7 mm distal uzantılı ve distal uzantısız
barlı protezleri temsil eden 2 adet üç boyutlu sonlu elemanlar modeli hazırlandı. Her modele, 25N horizontal, 100 N vertikal,
103 N oblik kuvvet uygulandı. Olusan stresler ANSYS 8.1 Workbench programı ile incelendi. Çalışmamızın sonucuna göre
maksimum stres değerleri kuvvetin uygulandığı tarafa en yakın implantın distalindeki kortikal kemikte tespit edildi. Spongioz
kemikte belirlenen maksimum stres değerleri ise düşük olup genellikle implantların apeksinde ve implantları çevreleyen
kemikte saptandı.

Keywords

Implant üstü protezler, overdenture, sonlu elemanlar gerilme analizi

THE EFFECT OF CANTILEVERS ON THE STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF THREE IMPLANTS SUPPORTING MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURES

Abstract

Implant therapy is widely used for the treatment of edentulous patients. Placing implants to the interforaminal region of an
edentulous mandible and constructing overdenture prosthesses is a good alternative. However, there is no consensus on the
number of the implants and whether or not using distal extensions. For that reason in our study, we tried to find out the effect
of implant retained overdenture prosthesses with or without distal extensions on the stress distribution at the implant
interface. In our study we prepared two, three dimentional finite element models representing bar retained overdenture
prostheses with 7mm distal extensions and no distal extensions built over 3 implants. 25 N horizontal, 100 N vertical and 103
N oblique force were aplied each model. The stresses were investigated using the ANSYS 8.1 workbench programme. The
results of our study show that the maximum stress formations were seen on the cortical bone distal to the implant which is
nearest to the side where the forces were applied. 

Keywords

Implant supported prosthesis, overdentures, finite element stres analysis

References

• Naert I , Alsaadi G, van Steenberghe D , Quirynen M . A 10 year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 695-702.
• Atmaram GH. Mohammed H . Stress analysis o f single-tooth implants.11. Effect o f root length variation and pseudo periodontal ligament incorporation. Implantologist 1983; 3: 58-62.
• Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Osseointegration: A requiem for the periodontal ligament? (guess editorial) Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991; 11: 88-91.
• Mensor M.C. Attachment fixation for overdentures: Part I . J Prosthet Dent 1977; 37: 366-373.
• Davis D . M . , Zarb G.A., Chao Y . L . Studies on frameworks for osseointegrated prostheses: Part I . The effect o f varying the number o f supporting abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988; 3: 197-201.
• Epstein D.D., Epstein P.L., Cohen B . I . , Pagnillo M . K . Comparison o f the retentive properties o f six prefabricated post overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82: 579-584.
• Heckmann S.M., Winter W., Meyer M . , Weber H.P., Wichmann M.G. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading o f implant and denturebearing area. Part I : I n vivo verification o f stereolithographic model. Clin Oral Impl Res 2001; 12: 617-623.
• Stricker A , Gutwald R, Schmeizeisen R, Gellrich NG. •mmediate loading o f 2 interforaminal dental implants supporting an overdenture: clinical and radiographic results after 24 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 868-872.
• Sadowsky SJ, Caputo A A . Stress transfer o f four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever designs. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92: 328-336.
• Batenburg R.H.K., Meijer H.J.A., Raghoebar G.M., Vissink A . Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13: 539-545.
• Jemt T., Book K., Karlsson S. Occlusal force and mandibular movements i n patients with removable overdentures and fixed prostheses supported by implants i n the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 301-308.
• Davodi A., Nishimura R., Beumer J. I I I . A n implant supported fixed-removable prosthesis with a milled tissue bar and hader clip retention as a restorative option for the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 212-217.
• Brunski JB Biomechanical factors affecting the boneı dental implant interface. Clinical Materials 1992; 153-20.
• Haraldson T., Karlsson U., Carlsson GE. Bite forces and oral function in complete denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil 1979; 6: 41-48.
• Haraldson T., Carlsson GE., Ingervall B. Functional state, bite force and postural muscle activity in patients with Osseointegrated implant bridges. Acta Odontologica Scandinavia 1979; 37: 195-206.
• Rosenberg ES, Torosion JP & Slots J. Microbial differences in 2 clinically distinct types o f failures o f osseointegrated implants. Clin. Oral Implan Res 1991; 2: 135-144.
• Gross M , Nissan J, Samuel R. Stress distribution round maxillary implants i n anatomic phoelastic models o f varying geometry. Part 1. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 442-9.
• Jäger K , Wirz J. In-vitro-Spannunganalysen an Implantaten in Abhängigkeit von den hybridprothetischn Suprakonstruktionen. Z Zahnärtzlich Implantol 1993; 9; 42-49.
• Akça K., Çehreli M . C., İplikçioglu H. A comparison
• Lenz J, Freischläger C, Rong Q, Schweizerhof K , Schindler HJ, Riediger D. Zum Risiko der Implantatversorgung bei Bruxism. Z Zahnärtzlich Implantol 2001; 17 (2); 64-70.
• Atmaram GH, Mohammed H . Stress analysis o f single-tooth implants.1. Effect of elastic parameters and geometry of implant. Implantologist 1983; 3: 24ı 29.
• Mohammed H , Atmaram GH., Schoen FJ. Dental implant design: a critical review. J Oral Implantol 1979; 8; 393-410.
• Cook SD, Weinstein A M , Klawitter JJ. Three- dimensional finite element analysis of porous rooted Co-Cr-Mo alloy dental implants. J Dent Res 1982; 61: 25-9.
• Meroueh K A , Watanabe F, Mentag PJ. Finite element analysis partially edentulous mandible rehabilitated with osseointegrated cylindrical implants. J Oral Implantol 1987; 13; 215-38.
• Akpinar I , Demiral F, Parnas L , Sahin S. A comparison of stress and strain distribution characteristics of two different rigid implant designs for distal extension fixed prosthesis. Quintessence Int. 1996; 27: 11-7.
• Benzig UR, Pröbster L , Weber H , Gall H . Die implantologisch-prothetische Versorgung des zahnlosen Oberkiefers- biomechanische Analyse vs. klinischer Befund. Z Zahnärtzlich Implantol 1996; 12; 35-42.
• Benzing U.R., Gall H . , Weber H . Biomechanical aspects of two different implant-prosthetic concepts for edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 188-198.
• Balatlıoglu A. Akrirlk kaideli ve yumuşak astarlı tam protezlerde ve destek dokularında gerilme dağılımlarının üç boyutlu sonlu eleman gerilme analizi ile incelenmesi (Doktora tezi). İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2000.
• İnan M . Cisimlerin mukavemeti 6. Baskı. İstanbul: İTÜ Vakfı. Yayın No: 25, 1988: 12-342. of three-dimensional finite element stress analysis with i n vitro strain gauge measurements on dental implants. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 115-121.
• Baiamonte T., Abbate M.F., Pizzarello F., Lozada J., James R. The experimental verification of the efficacy o f finite element modeling to dental implant systems. J Oral Implantol 1996; 22: 104-110.
• Craig R.G., Ward M . L . Restorative dental materials. Tenth ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby 1996: 56-94.
• DeTolla D.H., Andreana S., Patra A . , Buhite R., Comella B. The role of the finite element model i n dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2000; 26: 77-81.
• Menicucci G., Mosolov A . , Mozzati M . , Lorenzetti M . , Preti G. Tooth-implant connection: some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Impl Res 2002; 13: 334-34.
• Ismail Y . H . , Pahountis L . N . , Fleming J.F. Comparison of two-dimensional and three- dimensional finite element analysis o f a blade implant. Int J Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1990; 4: 25-31.
• Meijer H.J.A., Starmans F.J.M., Bosman F., Steen W.H. A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil 1993; 20: 147-157.
• Meijer HJA., Kuiper JH, Starmans FJM, Bosman F. Stres distibution around dental implants influence of superstructure, length of implants and height of mandible. J Prosthet. Dent. 1982; 68: 96-102.
• Richter EJ. Basic biomechanics of dental implants in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet. Dent. 1989; 61: 602ı 609.
• Meijer H.J.A., Starmans F.J.M., Steen W.H.A. Location of implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible and the consequences for the design of the superstructure. J Oral Rehabil 1994; 21: 47-56.
• Meijer H.J.A., Starmans F.J.M., Steen W.H.A., Bosman F. A three-dimensional finite element study on two versus four implants in an edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 271-279.
• Meijer H.J.A., Starmans F.J.M., Steen W.H.A., Bosman F. Loading conditions of endosseous implants in an edentulous human mandible: A three- dimensional, finite-element study . J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23: 757-763.
• Taylor T.D., Agar J.R., Vogiatzi T. Implant Prosthodontics: Current Perspective and Future Directions Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 66-75.
• Akça K , İplikçioglu H. Finite element stress analysis of the effect of short implant usage in place of cantilever extensions in mandibular posterior edentulism J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 350-356.