Photoelastic Study of the Support Structures of Distal‐Extension Removable Partial Dentures

Costa, Marcio Magno; Silva, Marco Antônio Moreira Rodrigues da; Oliveira, S. A. G.; Gomes, Vanderlei Luiz; Carvalho, Polliane Morais

doi:10.1111/j.1532-849x.2009.00492.x

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This might mean that the ample covering of the basal area allowed for a better distribution of the load per unit area, as suggested by others [14]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Photoelastic methods have been applied to investigate biomechanical behavior of dental implants in bone supporting fixed and removable prostheses [12–14]; however, representing the nonhomogeneous and anisotropic structure of bone by plastic models gives rise to certain limitations in predictions of biological response to applied loads. Nevertheless, photoelastic models have successfully indicated differences between various conditions by comparative evaluation of stress-related outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This protects the implant, whose loss would be clinically more problematic than an eventual reabsorption in the ridge [14]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the ridge suffers from a little high tension, the implants do not develop very high tension themselves. Kenney and Richards [16] and others [14, 16, 17] concluded that ball/O-ring attachments transferred less stress to implants than bar-clip attachments when the photoelastic model with 2 implants was subjected to a posterior vertical load. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Photoelastic Stress Analysis Surrounding Implant-Supported Prosthesis and Alveolar Ridge on Mandibular Overdentures

Silva

Cazal

Almeida

et al. 2010

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the maximum stress around osseointegrated implants and alveolar ridge, in a mandible with left partial resection through a photoelastic mandibular model. The first group consisted of two implants: traditional model (T), implants placed in the position of both canines; fulcrum model (F), implants placed in the position of left canine CL and right lateral incisor LiR. Both models linked through a bar and clips. The second group was consisted of three implants, with implants placed in the position of both canines (CR and CL) and the right lateral incisor (LiR), which composed four groups: (1) model with 3 “O” rings, (2) model 2 ERAs, bar with clips, (3) model 2 ERAs bar without clips; (4) model “O” ring bar and ERA. An axial and an oblique load of 6.8 kgf was applied on a overdenture at the 1st Pm, 2nd Pm, and 1st M. Results showed that the area around the left canine (CL) was practically free of stress; the left lateral incisor (LiL) developed only small tensions, and low stress in all the other cases; the right canine tooth suffered the largest concentrations of stress, mainly with the ERA retention mechanism.

show abstract

“…This might mean that the ample covering of the basal area allowed for a better distribution of the load per unit area, as suggested by others [14]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This protects the implant, whose loss would be clinically more problematic than an eventual reabsorption in the ridge [14]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Photoelastic Stress Analysis Surrounding Implant-Supported Prosthesis and Alveolar Ridge on Mandibular Overdentures

Silva

Cazal

Almeida

et al. 2010

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fringes show the maximum and minimum shear stress levels when the model is under loading. The method used was photoelasticity, which allows visualizing the stress distribution in the entire structure, providing an overview of the stress behavior, showing quality, quantity, and force distribution in an object (KENNEY; RICHARDS, 1998;TURCIO et al, 2009) photoelastic method for performing this research was inspired by the most diverse studies in the different fields of Dentistry (MATHIAS, 2001;COSTA, 2002;BERNARDES et al, 2006;COSTA et al, 2009;SILVA et al, 2010), showing its adequacy to the type of study proposed in this article.…”

Section: Prosthesis Adjustments and Load Transmissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of stress distribution in different prosthetic solutions for Kennedy class I bilateral posterior edentulous arches

Silveira¹,

Afonso²,

Silva³

et al. 2018

Biosci. J.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of greatest challenges of dentists is the rehabilitation of free-end Kennedy class I and class II patients due to the improper occurrence of stress around the supporting structures of conventional removable dentures during mastication. This work aimed to compare the stress distribution in different prosthetic solutions. For this analysis, four photoelastic models (PM) were produced simulating a Kennedy class I arch with the remaining teeth 34 through 44. In all models, teeth 33, 34, 43, and 44 received metal crowns. In addition to the crowns, the A model (PMA) received a conventional removable partial denture (RPD), the B model (PMB) received a RPD associated with a semi-rigid attachment, the C model (PMC) received a RPD associated with a rigid attachment, and the D model (PMD) received a RPD associated with implant and rigid attachment. Evenly distributed loads were applied on the last artificial tooth of the prostheses. Based on the results of the distributed load, the conventional prosthesis presented the best results for all regions (averages ranging from 25.70 to 17.80), followed by the prosthesis associated with the implant, the prosthesis associated with the rigid attachment, and lastly, the prosthesis associated with the semi-rigid attachment. The same result can be observed in the localized load, where the conventional prosthesis presented superior results in all regions (averages ranging from 47.35 to 8.30), followed by the prosthesis associated with the implant, the prosthesis associated with the rigid attachment and, with the prosthesis associated with the semi-rigid attachment. Based on the data obtained, it may be concluded that the conventional RPD presented a balanced stress distribution in the three regions analyzed, and when associated with the semi-rigid attachment, it presented a more favorable behavior than that associated with the rigid attachment.

show abstract

Behavior of mandibular canines as abutment teeth and indirect retainers in Kennedy class II Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis

Camacho

Gallardo

Stegun

et al. 2018

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the behavior of mandibular canines acting as abutment teeth and indirect retainers of a Kennedy class II according to different designs: lingual rest and lingual rest associated with a reciprocal arm.Materials & methodsA resin cast with two simulated canine teeth was made in Ni-Cr alloy, representing a Kennedy class II mandibular arch. With the objective of simulating the resilience of the periodontal ligament, a polyurethane layer was added at the canine tooth's root. A metallic framework of Co-Cr alloy was fabricated with a T bar clasp and a lingual rest associated with a reciprocal arm. To obtain the second framework, the reciprocal arm was removed using a tungsten bur. Each framework was submitted to tensile force using a VersaTest machine. The magnitude and direction of canine movement during removal of the framework was measured using two dial gauges (mm). The axial tensile force required to remove the experimental framework (N) was also evaluated. The data were compared using the paired t-test with 95% confidence intervals. Differences were considered significant at P < .05.ResultsThe mean retentive force of the modified design framework with the reciprocal arm was significantly higher (P < .0001) than that of the framework with the lingual rest. The abutment teeth showed movement in the lingual and mesial directions, and this movement was less when associated with the reciprocal arm design.ConclusionThe reciprocal arm in association with a lingual rest in the framework decreased the movement of the abutment teeth when analyzed in the bucco-lingual and mesio-distal directions and contributed to increased retention by friction.

show abstract

Photoelastic Study of the Support Structures of Distal‐Extension Removable Partial Dentures

Abstract: The long saddles and the uniformly distributed loads demonstrated better distribution of stress on support structures.

Cited by 11 publications

References 23 publications

Photoelastic Stress Analysis Surrounding Implant-Supported Prosthesis and Alveolar Ridge on Mandibular Overdentures

Photoelastic Stress Analysis Surrounding Implant-Supported Prosthesis and Alveolar Ridge on Mandibular Overdentures

Comparative analysis of stress distribution in different prosthetic solutions for Kennedy class I bilateral posterior edentulous arches

Behavior of mandibular canines as abutment teeth and indirect retainers in Kennedy class II Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About