Edentulous mandible with four splinted interforaminal implants exposed to three different situations of trauma: A preliminary three‐dimensional finite element analysis

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The effect of frontal trauma on the edentulous mandible with four different interforaminal implant-prosthodontic anchoring configurations. A 3D finite element analysis

“…Regardless of whether the two interforaminal implants were used in splinted or unsplinted configuration, a frontal trauma consistently resulted in increased stress values in the area of the anterior implants and there in the periimplant cortical region, which may be attributed to the weakening of the bone by the implant insertion [ 20 , 21 , 23 ]. Thus, the results of the present experimental study confirm the data of Kan et al [ 21 ] and Ayali und Bilginaylar [ 20 ] reporting that with two interforaminal implants exposure to a frontal trauma will result in increased stress values in the area of the periimplant bone as well as in the area of the implants [ 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 ].…”

“…In particular, the comparison of four splinted interforaminal implants versus four unsplinted implants showed that the stress values were even more significantly reduced and thus associated with a favorable fracture risk in the symphysis area. This may be attributed to the fact that in the four-implant model the splinting suprastructure provides for transmission of the stress values to the splinted bar and/or the attachments and not directly to the peri-implant cortical bone as in the unsplinted model [ 23 , 24 , 50 ].…”

“…It is well known that external pin fixation represents a conventional method for stabilization of fracture segments and will also be used in certain settings in traumatology [ 52 , 53 ]. A prosthetic bar or the supporting suprastructure for a fixed denture on four implants thus also represents a suitable external splinting even without an original intention and shows the potential of reducing the fracture risk in the symphysis region [ 23 , 24 ].…”

“…Therefore, the aged population with previous implant-prosthodontic treatment suffering traumatic falls and/or injuries will represent a novel class of maxillofacial trauma patients [ 12 , 17 , 22 ]. Similar to traumatic events in patients containing osteosynthesis material dental implants are seen to alter the biomechanical bone behavior when exposed to traumatic forces [ 20 , 23 , 24 ].…”

Retrospective long‐term clinical evaluation of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

“…Standard prosthetic rehabilitation for edentulous tumor patients consisted of bar-retained overdentures to compensate for possibly anatomical discrepancies of the alveolar ridge in consequence of ablation or transplant/augmentation procedures and to allow direct fixation of multiple implants. The issue if primary splinting implants leads to a reduction of the stress levels following a traumatic load is still debated (Krennmair et al, 2020) and lead to higher survival rates in the present investigation. Furthermore, extending purely implant-supported cantilevers (up to 12 mm) is possible using this anchorage system (Krennmair et al, 2013;Semper et al, 2010) and avoids potential pressures of the prosthesis base on the mucosa.…”