A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: Comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations

Daas, Marwan; Dubois, Guillaume; Bonnet, Anne Sophie; Lipiński, P.; Rignon-Bret, Christophe

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2007.02.005

Cited by 124 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the majority of the existing works of this type on bone implants have focused on the biomechanical nature of the problem, trying to draw conclusions from the change of the mechanical state of bone after placement of implants, evaluating the influence of mechanical factors such as the geometry of the implant or magnitude of loading and proposing phenomenological models for the study of bone ingrowth or remodelling Moreo et al, 2007b;Pérez et al, 2007;Daas et al, 2007;Liao et al, 2008). Although the interest of these works is unquestionable, it is the authors' opinion that mechanobiological models in which specific biological processes coupled with mechanics are modelled together with their influence on the structure and mechanical properties of tissues constitute a richer source of information for the understanding of many problems in biomedical sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone ingrowth on the surface of endosseous implants. Part 1: Mathematical model

Moreo

García-Aznar

Doblaré

2009

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone ingrowth on the surface of endosseous implants. Part 1: Mathematical model

Moreo

García-Aznar

Doblaré

2009

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two tested attachment types were built onto the models M1 and M2 yielding four models (Figure 3): M1 with locator attachment (M1-LA), M2 with locator attachment (M2-LA), M1 with ball attachment (M1-BA), and M2 with ball attachment (M2-BA). between bone and implants (100% osseointegration) was assumed [11]. Boundary conditions included constraining three degrees of freedom at each of the nodes located at the mandibular condyles.…”

Section: Continuous Geometric Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several types of attachments available in the worldwide market, and the most popular are ball, o'ring, stud, and magnet [3,4]. In the literature, the biomechanical behavior of these systems was studied mainly by means of the prosthesis retention [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] or the bone-implant-abutmentattachment-prosthesis interaction [6,[13][14][15][16]. However, there are still limited studies that have addressed the optimization of this type of treatment with alternative implant localization designs across attachment systems [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The biomechanical behavior of implant-supported implants, considering the tensions generated at the boneimplant-abutment-prosthesis interfaces can be evaluated through different methods: photoelastic analysis [6], extensometry [7,8,15], and finite element analysis [11,13,14,16]. According to Tanino et al [16], the photoelastic analysis is limited in the quantification of the information, and the extensometry is influenced by the size of the extensometer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of mandibular overdentures with different implant positions and attachment types

Broilo¹,

Sartori²,

Mariano³

et al. 2018

Rev. Odonto Ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: This 3-D FEA study compared the stress distribution in two-implant mandibular overdentures as a function of implant position and attachment system (LA: locator attachment vs. BA: ball attachment). METHODS: Four models of mandibular overdentures were tested: M1-LA -with implants at the canine regions (standard implant position) and LA; M2-LA -with implants placed at the first premolar regions (distalized implant position) and LA; M1-BA -with standard implant position and BA; and M2-BA -with distalized implant position and BA. The geometric models were converted into finite element models. A 100 N axial load was applied at the first molar region. The von-Mises stress distribution was compared in selected points. RESULTS: The models with BA had pattern of stress distribution was more uniform along the implant axis than the ones with LA, although the stress magnitude was larger. The largest area of von Mises stresses on the alveolar ridge was in the models with standard implant distribution. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that the models with BA had better biomechanical behavior than the ones with LA. For both types of attachment, the models with increased inter-implant distance presented a smaller area of stress distribution in the perimplant cortical bone tissue than the standard implant position.Keywords: dental implants; implant-supported overdenture; biomechanics; finite element analysis.Análise de elementos finitos em 3D de sobredentaduras mandibulares com diferentes posições de implante e tipos de encaixe RESUMO OBJETIVO: Este estudo de análise de elementos finitos em 3-D comparou a distribuição de tensão em sobredentaduras suportadas por implante em função da posição do implante e do sistema de encaixe (AA: tipo "locator" vs. BA: tipo "bola") METODOLOGIA: Foram testados quatro modelos 3-D de sobredentadura com implante mandibular: M1-LAcom implantes nas regiões dos dentes caninos (posição padrão dos implantes) e LA; M2-LA -com implantes nas regiões dos dentes primeiros pré-molares (posição distalizada dos implantes) e LA; M1-BA -com posição padrão de implante e BA; e M2-BA -com posição distalizada dos implantes e BA. Os modelos geométricos foram convertidos em modelos de elementos finitos. Uma carga axial de 100 N foi aplicada na primeira região molar. A distribuição de estresses von Mises foi comparada em pontos selecionados. RESULTADOS: Os modelos com BA apresentaram padrão de distribuição de estresse mais uniforme ao longo do eixo do implante do que os modelos com LA, embora a magnitude do estresse tenha sido maior. A maior área de tensões no rebordo alveolar ocorreu nos modelos com posição padrão de implantes. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados sugerem que os modelos com BA apresentaram melhor comportamento biomecânico do que aqueles com LA. Para ambos os encaixes, implantes distalizados apresentam uma menor área de distribuição de estresse no tecido ósseo cortical do que posicionamento padrão dos implantes.Palavras-chave: implantes dentários; sobredentadura sobre implantes; biomecânica; anális...

show abstract

“…In all studies analyzed through the finite element, involving the mandible is required to include the masticatory muscles, with an accurate modeling of muscle actions (Daas et al, 2008). That is because the mandible is a dynamic structure, and the masticatory muscles are responsible for controlling the mandibular position and generate an adequate amount of loads during the function (Nomura et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insertion Area in the Mandible Masticatory Muscles for use in Finite Element Analyses

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:To validate the virtual finite element analysis (FEA) results, it is needed that the mathematical models take into account the insertion area. Thus, the aim of this study was to measure the insertion area of masticatory muscles in the mandible in human cadavers to be used in FEA. The insertion area of the masticatory mandible's muscles was measured on both sides of fifty human cadavers throughout digital photos and software. The insertion area of the masseter was 7.47(±0.41) cm 2 , the temporal (inner portion) was 3.05(±0.13) cm 2 , the temporal (outer portion) was 2.25(±0.28) cm 2 , the medial pterygoid was 2.2(±0.23) cm 2 , and the lateral pterygoid was 0.8(±0.05) cm 2 . In conclusion, there is enough data to be used for the finite element analysis.

show abstract

A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: Comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations

Cited by 124 publications

References 19 publications

Bone ingrowth on the surface of endosseous implants. Part 1: Mathematical model

Bone ingrowth on the surface of endosseous implants. Part 1: Mathematical model

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of mandibular overdentures with different implant positions and attachment types

Insertion Area in the Mandible Masticatory Muscles for use in Finite Element Analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About