The Influence of Bone Loss on Peri-implant Bending Strain Under Overdentures

Pham, Nguyen Quan; Gonda, Tomoya; Takahashi, Toyomi; Maeda, Yoshinobu

doi:10.11607/jomi.6596

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1,10 Scientific studies that address this theme show divergent results in several factors, which hinders the comparison between studies. 1,9,10 Currently, the advances in image processing and analysis techniques through software have been changing the reality in Dentistry. Digitization is widely used in studies as well as dental clinic in several areas, such as in radiology, orthodontics, implantology, and prosthodontics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, these prostheses are effective when the patient has anatomical limitations, such as extension of the maxillary sinus in previous maxillary rehabilitation. 1 Another treatment option in the case of anterior edentulous areas is the placement of two implants in the region of the lateral incisors, 9,10 as this allows the dental technician to manufacture central bridges with the necessary aesthetic and functional dimensions, in addition to favoring aesthetics and manipulation of soft tissue. 1,10 Scientific studies that address this theme show divergent results in several factors, which hinders the comparison between studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finite element analysis (FEA) is used in Dentistry to study how an implant and prosthodontics structures will respond to complex stress loading and to predict any possibility of structural failure. 2,9,[11][12][13][14] Thus, the aim of the present study was to verify the stress distribution in the implant, crown, and bone tissue in zirconia implants (single-body configuration) placed in different positions in the anterior region of the maxilla (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) in rehabilitation with and without a cantilever. The tested hypothesis is that implants placed on central incisors (11-21; with cantilever) would have lower mechanical performance compared with the other groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 10 Scientific studies that address this theme show divergent results in several factors, which hinders the comparison between studies. 1 9 10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Finite Element Analysis of Stress in Anterior Prosthetic Rehabilitation with Zirconia Implants with and without Cantilever

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate using finite element analysis (FEA), the stress distribution in prostheses (lithium disilicate crowns) on monotype zirconia implants with and without cantilever in the anterior region of the maxilla. Materials and Methods From a virtual reconstruction of bone model of the toothed maxilla from a computed tomography, three models (groups) were created: Zr (11–21)—implants placed in the area of 11 and 21 with cantilever; Zr (12–22)—implants placed in the area of 12 and 22 without cantilever; and Zr (11–22)—implants intercalated placed in the area of 11 and 22. In all models, monotype zirconia implant (4.1 × 12.0 mm) was used in single-body configuration. Lithium disilicate crowns were designed on the implants and pontics for all groups. A 150-N load was applied to the prostheses. The materials used were considered isotropic, homogeneous, and linearly elastic. FEA was performed to evaluate the maximum (tensile) and minimum (compressive) principal stresses in the implant, crowns, and bone tissue. Data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results For all groups, the highest maximum principal stress occurred in the palatal cervical area of the implant, with the high values for the Zr (12–22) group and the low values for the Zr (11–21) group. The maximum principal stress was concentrated in the cervical palatal area of the crown, with the Zr (11–21) group presented the highest values and the Zr (12–22) group showed the lowest values. In the bone tissue all the groups presented similar values of maximum and minimal principal stress, with the palatal (maximum principal) and vestibular (minimum principal) close to the cervical of the implants the area with the highest concentration of stresses. Conclusions The position of monotype zirconia implant did not interfere in the bone tissue stress, and the implants placed in the 11–21 present lower stress in implants and higher in the crown. The cantilever does not increase the stress in the implants, crown, and bone tissue.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%