Different Treatment Modalities Using Dental Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical behavior of peri-implant bone tissue and prosthetic components in two modalities of treatment for posterior region of the maxilla, using short implants or standard-length implants associated with bone graft in the maxillary sinus. Four 3D models of a crown supported by an implant fixed in the posterior maxilla were constructed. The type of implant: short implant (S) or standard-length implant with the presence of sinus graft (L) and type of crown retention: cemented (C) or screwed (S) were the study factors. The models were divided into SC- cemented crown on a short implant; SS- screwed crown on the short implant; LC- cemented crown on a standard-length implant after bone graft in the maxillary sinus and LS- crown screwed on a standard-length implant after bone graft in the maxillary sinus. An axial occlusal loading of 300 N was applied, divided into five points (60N each) corresponding to occlusal contact. The following analysis criteria were observed: Shear Stress, Maximum and Minimum Main Stress for bone tissue and von Mises Stress for the implant and prosthetic components. The use of standard-length implants reduced the shear stress in the cortical bone by 35.75% and the medullary bone by 51% when compared to short implants. The length of the implant did not affect the stress concentration in the crown, and the cement layer acted by reducing the stresses in the ceramic veneer and framework by 42%. Standard-implants associated with cemented crowns showed better biomechanical behavior.

Stress distribution in prosthetic abutments: a finite element analysis comparison of conical and UCLA abutments

“…A 70 µm mesh of tetrahedral elements was defined after convergence analysis of 5% and an axial load of 200 N, consistent with reports found in the literature for the posterior region (Figure 3A) (Lemos et al, 2021;Lee et al, 2021). This load was applied axially in the occlusal region of the restoration divided into 5 points according to a normal occlusion (Figure 3B) (Brune et al, 2019;Bordin et al, 2021). (Coelho et al, 2009;Cruz et al, 2010).…”