Effects of overdenture attachment systems with different working principles on stress transmission: A three-dimensional finite element study

Türker, Nurullah; Buyukkaplan, Ulviye Sebnem

doi:10.4047/jap.2020.12.6.351

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results suggested that clinician should pay closer attention to the implant on this side during follow-up visits, to prevent the adverse effect of unsymmetrical implant distribution on retention. Clinicians could select implants with a larger diameter [ 24 – 26 ] or longer length [ 27 ] during surgery, or connect the two implants rigidly with bar attachments [ 28 ] or use locator attachments as short as possible for more favorable stress distribution [ 29 ], or choose attachment types that allow rotation and can tolerate various angles [ 30 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implant distribution on the biomechanical behaviors of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

Liao,

Cao,

Zhong

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess stress distribution in peri-implant bone and attachments of mandibular overdentures retained by small diameter implants, and to explore the impact of implant distribution on denture stability. Methods Through three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis (3D FEA), four models were established: three models of a two mandibular implants retained overdenture (IOD) and one model of a conventional complete denture (CD). The three IOD models consisted of one with two implants in the bilateral canine area, another with implants in the bilateral lateral incisor area, and the third with one implant in the canine area, and another in the lateral incisor area. Three types of loads were applied on the overdenture for each model: a 100 N vertical load and a inclined load on the left first molar, and a100N vertical load on the lower incisors. The stress distribution in the peri-implant bone, attachments, and the biomechanical behaviors of the overdentures were analyzed. Results Despite different distribution of implants, the maximum stress values in peri-implant bone remained within the physiological threshold for all models across three loading conditions. The dispersed implant distribution design (implant in the canine area) exhibited the highest maximum stress in peri-implant bone (822.8 µe) and the attachments (275 MPa) among the three IOD models. The CD model demonstrated highest peak pressure on mucosa under three loading conditions (0.8188 Mpa). The contact area between the denture and mucosa of the CD model was smaller than that in the IOD models under molar loading, yet it was larger in the CD model compared to the IOD model under anterior loading. However, the contact area between the denture and mucosa under anterior loading in all models was significantly smaller than those under molar loading. The IOD in all three models exhibited significantly less rotational movement than the complete denture. Different implant positions had minimal impact on the rotational movement of the IOD. Conclusion IOD with implants in canine area exhibited the highest maximum stress in the peri-implant bone and attachments, and demonstrated increased rotational movement. The maximum principal stress was concentrated around the neck of the small diameter one-piece implant, rather than in the abutment. An overdenture retained by two implants showed better stability than a complete denture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implant distribution on the biomechanical behaviors of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

Liao,

Cao,

Zhong

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The differences in thickness significantly impact the physical quality and performance of the system. Because of the enhanced rotational freedom and function of a stress breaker, the O-ring of an implant overdenture attachment system is advantageous in terms of the stress distribution on the implants [33]. Likewise, the Locator male, a plastic component with similar force-breaking capabilities, may play a key role in the transmission of reduced stress [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stress distribution of one-piece and two-piece mini-Implant overdentures with various attachment systems and diameters: A finite element analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant overdentures have become a reliable treatment option for edentulous patients because of their enhanced retention, stability, masticatory performance, and higher patient satisfaction compared to conventional complete dentures [1,2]. Mini-implants have a reduced diameter of <3.0 mm and are manufactured using biocompatible materials used for manufacturing standard-sized implants [3]. Mini-implant overdentures are beneficial alternatives for elderly patients with severely resorbed mandibles or physical conditions that hinder advanced surgeries such as bone reshaping or grafting when using standard-sized implants [4]. They are also associated with a reduced cost, as the relatively high cost of standard-sized implant overdentures could limit patients' willingness to accept treatment [5]. In addition, they require minimal intervention and lower operative time compared to standard-sized implants[6] and demonstrate adequate survival rates [7]. Despite these advantages, mini-implants reportedly have lower mechanical strength and increased risks of implant fractures and peri-implant bone damage [4,8]. Clinical studies have highlighted the threat of fatigue fractures in implants with diameters <3.5 mm. In addition, mini-implants showed considerably low strength in in vitro monotonic loading tests, indicating a risk of fracture [9,10]. Therefore, while determining the applications of implants with a diameter ≤3 mm, practitioners should exercise extreme caution, particularly in selecting implant designs that have been proven to affect the mechanical response of implants. The optimal mini-implant J Prosthodont Res. 2022; **(**):

show abstract

“…The surface contact between overdenture and mucosa was defined as contact with friction (coefficient of friction 0.334). 29 The contact between matrix and patrix of the ball attachment was defined as contact with friction (coefficient of friction 0.4). 29 The contact between the primary and secondary resilient telescopic crowns was defined as (no separation), that allows the sliding between surfaces without separation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite Element Study of Stress Distribution with Tooth-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Retained by Ball Attachments or Resilient Telescopic Crowns

AL-Kordy

Al-Saadi

2022

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The removable partial denture must keep health of the remaining teeth and the supporting tissues through the distribution of chewing forces on the abutment teeth and alveolar process.This study aimed to evaluate stress distribution with canines-supported mandibular overdenture retained by two different attachment types: ball attachments or resilient telescopic crowns. Materials and Methods Two 3-dimensional finite element models consisting of the cortical mandible bone, cancellous mandible bone, oral mucosa, canines, periodontal ligaments, the two attachment types, and overdenture were simulated. The models were imported into the mathematical analysis software Ansys Workbench V 15.0. All materials were considered to be homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic. A vertical bilateral load of 120 N was applied to the central fossa of the first molars. The von Mises stress was calculated for canines, cortical, and cancellous bone. Results The maximum von Mises stress of the ball attachments model was 35.61, 4.28, 7.82, and 1.29 MPa for canines, cortical alveolar bone of canines, cortical alveolar bone at the distal end of the overdenture, and cancellous alveolar bone of canines, respectively. The maximum von Mises stress of the resilient telescopic crowns model was 39.22, 4.74, 7.06, and 1.05 MPa for canines, cortical alveolar bone of canines, cortical alveolar bone at the distal end of the overdenture, and cancellous alveolar bone of canines, respectively. Conclusion Resilient telescopic crowns distribute the stresses between canines, alveolar bone of canines, and overdenture supporting alveolar bone. Ball attachments transfer less stress to the canines and cortical alveolar bone of the canines, but more stress to the cancellous alveolar bone of canines and alveolar bone at distal end of the overdenture. Resilient telescopic crowns are preferred over ball attachment when the abutment teeth have good periodontal support.

show abstract

Effects of overdenture attachment systems with different working principles on stress transmission: A three-dimensional finite element study

Cited by 7 publications

References 32 publications

Influence of implant distribution on the biomechanical behaviors of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

Influence of implant distribution on the biomechanical behaviors of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

Stress distribution of one-piece and two-piece mini-Implant overdentures with various attachment systems and diameters: A finite element analysis

Finite Element Study of Stress Distribution with Tooth-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Retained by Ball Attachments or Resilient Telescopic Crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About