Influence of Cross-Section Design and Vertical Misfit on Stress Distribution in Overdenture Retaining System

Nogueira, Moises C. F.; Bacchi, Ataís; Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz; Santos, Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000770

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bhering and co‐workers 87 reported a moderate negative correlation between the vertical misfit and the reverse torque of prosthesis screws in implant‐supported prostheses. The result agreed with the FEA study that the mechanical components in implant assembly with vertical misfit were being stressed 80 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Descriptives, advantages and limitations of the techniques are listed in Table 6. Within the 23 articles solely used modeling assessments, 10 investigated with SGA, 16,60‐69 1 with PSA, 70 1 with reverse torque test, 71 and 11 with FEA 10,72‐81 . All 11 studies established the FE model with 2 implants (five overdentures, seven 3‐unit frameworks), while no FEA study was found on complete arch prosthesis supported by multiple implants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the FEA studies introduced levels of predetermined misfit into the FE models to calculate the resulting stresses concentrated in the implant system, including screws, framework, implants and peri‐implant bone (cortical and cancellous bone). The artificially induced misfit ranged from 5 ~ 300 μm on the vertical plane 73,75‐78,81 and 10 ~ 200 μm on the horizontal plane 10,72,74,79,80 . Besides, vertical bone loss (1.4 mm), 74 unilateral angular misfit (100 μm) 81 and axial/off‐axial forces (100 ~ 200 N) 75,81 were also simulated in different studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Before investigating the framework misfit, a clear definition of “passive fit” is needed. It was once described as the level of fit that did not cause any related clinical complications in the long‐term 80 . However, this definition was entirely hypothetical as neither sufficient clinical evidence on the misfit‐related complications nor effective clinical method to detect such misfits was available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FEA is a numerical method that can be used to explore the misfit‐related stress in the implant assembly and peri‐implant structures by inputting pre‐determined values of vertical, horizontal and angular misfit into the FE models. Studies showed vertical misfit induced more stress in the superstructures (framework, screws and veneering material) than in the infrastructures (implant and peri‐implant bone) 80 because the residual vertical gap, acting as a stress‐breaker, hindered the stress transferring toward the implants and their surroundings 78 . Compared to the vertical misfit, stresses induced by the horizontal misfit were found to be more evenly distributed across the entire system 79 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Pan

Tsoi

Lam

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The fit of implant‐supported prostheses is of prime importance for the long‐term success of implant therapy. Purpose This systematic review aimed to evaluate recent evidence on current techniques for assessing implant‐framework misfit, its associated strain/stress, and whether these misfits are related to mechanical, biological, and clinical consequences. Materials and methods An electronic search for publications from January 2010 to October 2020 was performed using the Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with combined keywords on implant‐framework misfit assessments and related clinical complications. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After full‐text analyses, data extraction was implemented on current techniques of misfit assessment and the relationship between the misfit and the induced strain/stress. Results A total of 3 in vivo and 92 in vitro studies were selected, including 47 studies on quantifying the degree of implant‐framework misfit with dimensional techniques, 24 studies measuring misfit‐induced strain/stress with modeling techniques, and 24 studies using both methods. The technical details, advantages, and limitations of each technique were illustrated. The correlation between the implant‐framework misfit and the induced strain/stress has been revealed in vitro, while that with the biological complications and implant/prostheses failure was weak in clinical studies. Conclusions Dimensional and modeling techniques are available to measure the implant‐framework misfit. The passivity of implant‐supported fixed prostheses appeared related to the induced strain/stress, but not the clinical complications. Further studies combining three‐dimensional (3D) assessments using dimensional and modeling techniques was needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Pan

Tsoi

Lam

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accuracy of Selective Laser Melted Bar Retaining Mandibular Implant-Assisted Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Different Impression Materials and Techniques

El-Asfahani,

Ramdan,

Agamy

2023

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of the marginal fit of implant overdenture bars fabricated with selective laser melting technology, utilizing polyvinyl siloxane and vinyl siloxane ether impression materials and different impression techniques. Two implants with multi-unit abutments were inserted in a 3D-printed mandibular model and used as a reference model, then duplicated into a stone cast to fabricate custom trays for obtaining impressions with polyvinyl siloxane and vinyl siloxane ether impression materials, using both open and closed-tray techniques. This resulted in a total of 4 groups, each with 8 specimens. The impressions were poured, scanned, and 32 cobalt-chromium bars were fabricated using selective laser melting technology. Each bar was screwed onto one abutment of the reference model, and a standardized digital periapical radiograph of the opposite unscrewed side was taken, this process was repeated to the other abutment. The vertical misfit was measured at three predetermined positions on the unscrewed side, and six values per bar were recorded. The mean gap distance was measured and the data were subjected to statistical analysis, The study found that the open tray technique using the vinyl siloxane ether group had the lowest mean gap distance and the closed tray technique resulted in a higher mean gap distance compared to the open tray technique regardless of the impression material. In Conclusion, the open-tray impression technique using vinyl siloxane ether impression material resulted in a significantly better fit for bar retaining implant overdenture.

show abstract

Influence of Cross-Section Design and Vertical Misfit on Stress Distribution in Overdenture Retaining System

Abstract: Higher vertical misfit increased the stress values on the overdenture-retaining bar system; complex cross-sectional designs increased stress values on the bar framework, prosthetic screw, and periimplant bone tissue; stiffer alloys caused higher stress values on all the studied conditions.

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications

Accuracy of Selective Laser Melted Bar Retaining Mandibular Implant-Assisted Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Different Impression Materials and Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About