Stress analysis of different configurations of 3 implants to support a fixed prosthesis in an edentulous jaw

Silva-Neto, João Paulo da; Pimentel, Marcele Jardim; Neves, Flávio Domingues das; Santos, Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos

doi:10.1590/s1806-83242013005000028

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other research (Rubo & & Capello Souza, 2010) was observed that the increase in stress was proportional to the size of the cantilever, which would be of benefit when using tilted implants. Silva-Neto et al (2013) reported that tilted implants exhibited high stress in the finite analysis, although these is a positive influence on decreasing the load in some zones because the reduction in the distal cantilever area. Begg et al, also reported that the angulation of the distal implants is greater on the cervical load, with similar results to our observations, demonstrating that implants at 45º display high stress levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Stress Analysis in Maxillary All-On-Four Model

Cidade

Olate

Pozzer

et al. 2015

Int. J. Odontostomat.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research was to evaluate the load distribution in tilted distal implants used in the all-onfour system. Two implant schemes were used. In both, two vertical anterior implants and tilted posterior implants were installed, one group with an angulation of 15º and another with an angulation of 35º. The implants were installed together with a bar binding them all in a photoelastic model obtained from a replica of an edentulous maxilla. In this model, loads were produced in the sector of the bar cantilever, the abutment of the tilted implants and over the four implants using devices specially designed for this purpose. The bands were recorded with a digital camera, and the qualitative and quantitative analyses were carried out by means of student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney test in Biostat v. 5.0, considering a level of p<0.05 to establish a statistically significant relation. In the qualitative analysis, the implant with 35º presented the greatest amount of stress on the cantilever forces at cervical level. The quantitative studies showed fewer differences in all aspects assessed, although significant differences were observed between the two systems when loads were applied at cantilever level. It can be concluded that there are minimal differences in the stress distribution when comparing implants with angulations of 15º or 35º. However, there is a greater concentration of stress at the cervical level in implants tilted to 35º.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Stress Analysis in Maxillary All-On-Four Model

Cidade

Olate

Pozzer

et al. 2015

Int. J. Odontostomat.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results are in agreement with long-term clinical data on implant and prosthesis survival, which demonstrated results that were similar regardless of the number of implants (ie, three, four, five, or six implants) used to support the fixed prostheses. 9,10,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] On the contrary, Fazi et al, 14 as well as Silva-Neto et al, 43 in recent FEAs, concluded that four or five parallel implants showed lower stress/strain concentration in bone in comparison with a configuration with three parallel implants. However, in these studies, the models were quite simplified and the implants were designed without body threads, abutment housing, and internal threads for prosthetic screws.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in these studies, the models were quite simplified and the implants were designed without body threads, abutment housing, and internal threads for prosthetic screws. 14,43 In addition, the loading was applied to a single point at the distal edge of the bar in some FEA studies. 14,43 Although in a comparative FEA study, having the same loading conditions would be enough to compare different implant aspects on the stress/strain values and distribution, accurate reproduction of the complex forces exerted during chewing function is desirable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14,43 In addition, the loading was applied to a single point at the distal edge of the bar in some FEA studies. 14,43 Although in a comparative FEA study, having the same loading conditions would be enough to compare different implant aspects on the stress/strain values and distribution, accurate reproduction of the complex forces exerted during chewing function is desirable. Furthermore, bite forces ranging from 50 to 400 N in the molar regions and 25 to 170 N in the incisor areas have been reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Connection Types and Implant Number on the Biomechanical Behavior of Mandibular Full-Arch Rehabilitation

Sousa¹,

Júnior²,

Fernandes-Neto³

et al. 2016

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the influence of different implant numbers and connection types on the biomechanical behavior of mandibular full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography-based finite element models comprising a totally edentulous mandible and 3.8 × 13-mmdiameter implants, abutments, abutment screws, bar retaining screw, and bar were constructed. Different implant numbers (three, four, and five implants) and loading conditions (symmetrical/balanced, unilateral, and posterior with diverse loading magnitudes) were simulated for both external hex and Morse-taper connections. The peak equivalent strain (EQV strain) in the bone and the peak of von Mises stress (EQV stress) in the abutment screw and bar retaining screw were evaluated. Results: Lower strain values were observed for a symmetrical loading distribution. Considering the same loading conditions, significantly higher bone strain levels were observed for external hex, compared with the Morse-taper connection. The number of implants had no significant influence on strain levels in bone, irrespective of the connection types. Compared with the external hex connection, the Morse-taper connection type presented significantly lower EQV stress values in abutment screws, but significantly higher stress in the bar retaining screw. Increasing the number of implants significantly reduced the EQV stress in the abutment screw and bar retaining screw. Conclusion: The Morse-taper connection type significantly decreased the strain levels in peri-implant bone, while increasing the stress in bar retaining screws. A smaller number of implants in an inferior full-arch rehabilitation slightly increased the stress in the abutment and bar retaining screws. Balanced adjustments of the loading improve the biomechanics of a mandibular full-arch rehabilitation.

show abstract

“…The Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were determined in accordance with existing literature (Table 3). 19,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] All materials were considered isotropic, linear, and homogenous. The primary bone model was defined by establishing boundary conditions, restriction, and loading to simulate real clinical situations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%