Evaluation of the structural behavior of three and four implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations by finite element analysis

Correa, Santiago; Ivancik, Juliana; Isaza, Juan Felipe; Naranjo, Mauricio

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2011.07.001

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposal of a design that would provide spacing between the metal bar and the support cylinder shoulder, allowing, after pressing, for the formation of a resin collar that would join these structures, sought greater occlusal load absorption and better dissipation among the implants, avoiding direct contact between metals. Studies that evaluated stress concentrations on full prosthesis upon the edentulous mandible revealed an overload on the distal implant 4,6 . Even when distal angled implants were selected, with the possibility of a stress concentration reduction of up to 17%, the stress accumulation for cantilever adjacent implants still persists 20 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatives for planning effective frameworks have been discussed in several studies 8,[12][13][14][15] . Despite the advances, no evidence has been observed 4,6,8,11 that complement the simplicity proposed by Maló et al 2,3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The all-on-four concept (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden), a rehabilitation modality that combines axial anterior and angled posterior implants with immediate load on the mandible, has been validated by longitudinal studies 1,2 . Since it was developed by Maló et al 3 , the surgicalprosthetic technique has shown excellent results and predictable success rates [4][5][6] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, different studies report on prosthetic complications and temporary acrylic prosthesis breaks during the post-surgery recovery phase 4,5,9,10 . The choice to prepare the temporary prosthesis without internal reinforcement contributes to the occurrence of complications varying between 10.8%, according to Hinze et al 5 , and 30% reported on Maló et al 3 study, whereas the temporary prostheses, with internal reinforcement, are considered to be the golden standard as they offer biomechanical advantages 11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical development and evaluation of a new framework for all-on-four rehabilitation

Silva

Fonseca

et al. 2019

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: Para reabilitação de mandíbulas totalmente edêntulas, a opção por carga imediata determina a utilização de próteses provisórias que esplintem os implantes instalados. Apesar de provisórias com reforço proverem as reabilitações com benefícios biomecânicos, a não adoção desta indicação coexiste em diferentes estudos sobre restaurações imediatas. Objetivo: Este estudo avaliou um tipo de prótese para reabilitar mandíbulas pelo conceito "all-on-four". Material e método: Foi avaliado, in-vitro, o comportamento mecânico de próteses com a infraestrutura modificada, sob ensaio mecânico de flexão unilateral em cantilever. Foram avaliados dois grupos representativos para o conceito "all-on-four", sendo um grupo teste G1 (n = 10) contendo próteses com infraestrutura modificada e outro controle G2 (n = 10) que incluiu próteses totalmente acrílicas. As amostras foram submetidas à ciclagem térmica com 500 ciclos (5° ± 2 °C por 30 segundos e 55° ± 2 °C pelo mesmo tempo) e submetidas ao ensaio mecânico à flexão sobre o cantilever. Resultado: O teste de Mann-Whitney revelou diferença significativa entre G1 e G2 (p<0,001). Na avaliação descritiva, G1 mostrou média de 830,50 N até a fratura inicial em resina e o grupo controle apresentou média de 403,58N. A resistência máxima até a fratura completa foi de 903,03 N para G1 e para G2 de 435,20 N. O componente vertical linear de flexão foi 0,68 mm e 0,39 mm até a fratura inicial da barra, respectivamente para G1 e G2. Conclusão: A infraestrutura modificada para o protocolo "all-on-four" proporcionou melhor desempenho mecânico quando comparado ao mesmo modelo de prótese totalmente acrílico.Descritores: Carga imediata em implante dentário; mandíbula; infraestrutura; implantes dentários. AbstractIntroduction: For complete rehabilitation of fully edentulous mandibles, the option for immediate loading determines the use of temporary prostheses that splint the installed implants. Although temporary prostheses with reinforcement provide rehabilitations with biomechanical benefits, the non-adoption of this recommendation coexists in different studies on immediate restorations. Objective: This study evaluates a type of prosthesis to restore jaws by the all-on-four concept. Material and method: The mechanical behavior of prostheses with the modified framework was evaluated in vitro, under a cantilever mechanical unilateral bending test. Two representative groups were included in the all-on-four concept, with a G1 test group (n = 10) containing modified frameworks and a G2 control group (n = 10) that included full acrylic prostheses. The samples were submitted to thermal cycling with 500 cycles (5° ± 2 °C for 30 s, and 55° ± 2° for 30 s) and to the mechanical bending test on the cantilever. Result: The Mann-Whitney test revealed a significant difference between G1 and G2 (p <0.001). In the descriptive evaluation, G1 averaged 830.50 N until the initial resin fracture, while the control group presented a mean of 403.58N. The maximum resistance until complete fracture was recorded ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical development and evaluation of a new framework for all-on-four rehabilitation

Silva

Fonseca

et al. 2019

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finite element analysis is a proven theoretical technique that is used to solve engineering problems and can be an alternative for studies of clinical samples, for which data collection of in vivo data is impossible or scientifically questionable (16). There are some limitations in case of emulating the example by FEA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Stress Distribution Around Dental Implants in Three Models of Arch Form to Replace Six Anterior Teeth of Maxilla using the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Method

Mahmoud

Yousefimanesh

Zarei

et al. 2017

Jentashapir J Helath Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Biomechanical behavior of all-on-4 concept and alternative designs under different occlusal load configurations for completely edentulous mandible: a 3-D finite element analysis

Şentürk,

Akaltan

2024

Odontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the All-on-4 design and 4 alternative implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs on stress distribution in implants, peri-implant bone, and prosthetic framework in the edentulous mandible under different loading conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA).Five different experimental finite element models (Model A (unsplinted 6), Model B (splinted 6), Model C (All-on-4), Model D (axial; 2 anterior, 2 posterior), and Model E (4 interforaminal)) were created. Three different loading conditions were applied (canine loading, unilateral I-loading, and unilateral II-loading). The highest minimum (Pmin) and the maximum (Pmax) principal stress values were acquired for cortical and trabecular bones; the highest von Mises (mvM) stress values were obtained for implants and metal frameworks. Model B and Model D showed the most favorable stress distribution. The All-on-4 design (Model C) also showed acceptable stress values close to those of Model B and Model D in the cortical and trabecular bones. In accordance with the stress values in the bone structure, the lowest stress values were measured in the implants and Co-Cr framework in Model B and Model D. The highest stress values in all structures were measured for unilateral loading- II, while the lowest values were found for canine loading. It was concluded that Model B and Model D experimental models showed better biomechanical performance in all structures. Furthermore, the use of a splinted framework, avoiding cantilevers, results in lower stress transmission. On the other hand, canine loading and unilateral loading-I exhibited the best loading conditions.

show abstract

Evaluation of the structural behavior of three and four implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations by finite element analysis

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

Biomechanical development and evaluation of a new framework for all-on-four rehabilitation

Biomechanical development and evaluation of a new framework for all-on-four rehabilitation

A Comparison of Stress Distribution Around Dental Implants in Three Models of Arch Form to Replace Six Anterior Teeth of Maxilla using the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Method

Biomechanical behavior of all-on-4 concept and alternative designs under different occlusal load configurations for completely edentulous mandible: a 3-D finite element analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About