Prosthetic design and restorative material effect on the biomechanical behavior of dental implants: strain gauge analysis

Ahmed, Mohamed Abdel Moniem; Hamdy, Amina; Fattah, Ghada Abdel; Effadl, Ahmed Khaled Abo

doi:10.4322/bds.2022.e3380

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, despite corroborating with previous investigations in terms of stress pattern and mechanical behavior, the results obtained should not be isolated or used to determine treatment reliability. Further investigations, considering photoelasticity, strain gauge or digital image correlation, could be performed to confirm or deny the differences observed in the present stress analysis [ 50 , 51 ]. In summary, the stress maps should be carefully evaluated before being extrapolated by further studies in dentistry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Stress Distribution Pattern in Zygomatic Implants Supporting Different Superstructure Materials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the stress–strain pattern of zygomatic dental implants supporting different superstructures using 3D finite element analysis (FEA). A model of a tridimensional edentulous maxilla with four dental implants was designed using the computer-aided design (CAD) software. Two standard and two zygomatic implants were positioned to support the U-shaped bar superstructure. In the computer-aided engineering (CAE) software, different materials have been simulated for the superstructure: cobalt–chrome (CoCr) alloy, titanium alloy (Ti), zirconia (Zr), carbon-fiber polymers (CF) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). An axial load of 500 N was applied in the posterior regions near the zygomatic implants. Considering the mechanical response of the bone tissue, all superstructure materials resulted in homogeneous strain and thus could reconstruct the edentulous maxilla. However, with the aim to reduce the stress in the zygomatic implants and prosthetic screws, stiffer materials, such Zr, CoCr and Ti, appeared to be a preferable option.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Stress Distribution Pattern in Zygomatic Implants Supporting Different Superstructure Materials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study did not conduct any in vitro experiments to validate the numerical model. The current stress analysis may need to be supplemented with additional studies using photoelasticity, strain gauges, or computer imaging analysis to confirm or deny the differences observed [ 48 , 49 ]. Although FEA has some limitations, it offers several advantages over in vivo research methods due to the researcher’s ability to manually alter the model geometry, loading conditions, and boundary conditions on a computer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium is the main component of dental implants. It is also routinely used as a framework material for implant-supported full-arch prostheses due to its low density, biocompatibility, and other mechanical properties. Remarkable mechanical properties such as lesser mass density and higher young’s modulus of graphene have gained popularity among scientists, improving the properties of biomedical implants. Thus, our study aimed to compare the outcome through the von Mises stresses generated on All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, as well as on the framework, and evaluate the effect of stress patterns on the crestal bone around implants in the mandible. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) study was carried out using edentulous mandible models. Four 3D FEA models with 3 and 6 implants were used (Model 1: Titanium bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 2: Graphene bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 3: Titanium bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted; Model 4: Graphene bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted) in order to simulate endosseous implant designs. The implant measuring 4.2 mm in diameter and 11.5 mm in length were used. The most distal implants in the 3-implant models were placed with angulation of 30 degrees; in 6 implants, they were vertically placed. All the models were analyzed for vertical and oblique axis with a single force magnitude of 100 N. In all four implant models and under loading conditions, the peak stress points were always on the neck of the most distal implant. von Mises stresses were within the normal stress range. In a conventional six-straight implant model supported by a titanium framework, the cortical stress in the region of implants was 25.27 MPa, whereas, in the graphene framework, it was 12.18 MPa. Under vertical load, there was a significant difference in the cortical stress around the tilted implants (30 degrees) in the 3-implant system of titanium and graphene frameworks, respectively, 70.31 MPa and 21.27 MPa. The graphene framework demonstrated better results than the titanium framework for the conventional six-implant system under vertical load, achieving stress of 30.09 MPa and 76.60 MPa, respectively. In the case of the 3-implant system, a significant difference in the bar stress was observed between graphene and titanium, respectively, 256.32 MPa and 180.1 MPa of bar stress. Within the limitation of this study, the peri-implant stresses were decreased using graphene framework models. Hence, it was possible to conclude that the best load-bearing capacity results were found in the graphene framework group compared to the titanium framework for All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, even though both materials are reliable options used as framework materials in implant-supported full-arch prostheses.

show abstract

“…To date, there is no consensus in the scientific literature about the ideal prosthetic design that should be used to optimally restore multiple implants in the posterior edentulous region, to reduce strain during loading. However, it seems plausible that splinted prosthetic designs present a suitable biomechanical behavior when compared with a fixed bridge [27]. Figure 5 shows the strain maps for the cortical bone with non-splinted and splinted crowns.…”

Section: Splinted Crownsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanics of implant-supported restorations

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rehabilitation of patients with dental implant-supported restorations is an ideal treatment option in contemporary dentistry. The aim of this review was to compile and to demonstrate the mechanical response during loading condition, on the stress distributions of implant-supported prostheses. The findings show that the majority of stresses were concentrated in the cervical region of the implant/abutment interface and that they can be affected by several clinical parameters and loading conditions. Finally, the final prosthetic design should combine superior mechanical response, long-term survival rate and allow patient satisfaction.

show abstract

Prosthetic design and restorative material effect on the biomechanical behavior of dental implants: strain gauge analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 30 publications

Stress Distribution Pattern in Zygomatic Implants Supporting Different Superstructure Materials

Stress Distribution Pattern in Zygomatic Implants Supporting Different Superstructure Materials

Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

Biomechanics of implant-supported restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About