Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 1097-1105
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758785
Original Article

Evaluation of Tension and Deformation in a Mandibular Toronto Bridge Anchored on Three Fixtures Using Different Framework Materials, Abutment Systems, and Loading Conditions: A FEM Analysis

Francesco Grande 
1   Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
,
Pozzan Mario Cesare 
2   Department of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
,
Edoardo Mochi Zamperoli
2   Department of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
,
Camilla Martina Gianoli
3   CIR Dental School Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy
,
Francesco Mollica
4   Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
,
Santo Catapano
2   Department of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate by finite element method analysis the behaviour of a three-implant mandible Toronto framework made by three different materials, with two abutment systems and two loading conditions.

Materials and Methods Three implants were virtually inserted in a mandible model in positions 3.6, 4.1, and 4.6. Three prosthetic framework bars with the same design and dimension (4.8 × 5.5 mm) were projected. The variables introduced in the computer model were the framework materials (glass fiber reinforced resin, Co-Cr, TiAl6V4), the abutment systems (Multi-Unit-Abutment [MUA]/OT-Bridge), and the loading conditions (500 N vertical load on all the framework area and 400 N on a 7-mm distal cantilever). The computer was programmed with physical properties of the materials as derived from the literature. Maximum tension and deformation values for each variable were registered at framework, screws, and abutment level and then compared.

Results Metal frameworks Cr-Co and TiAl6V4 resulted in lower deformation than glass fiber-reinforced resin frameworks while presenting higher tension values. The OT-Bridge exhibited lower maximum tension and deformation values than the MUA system. The first loading condition reached higher tension and deformation values than the second and it resulted in more uniformly distributed load on all the framework area, especially with the OT-Bridge system.

Conclusion More rigid materials and OT-Bridge system decrease the deformation on the prosthetic components. Tension stresses are more uniformly distributed with glass fiber-reinforced resin, in the OT-Bridge system and avoiding cantilever loading.

Keyword

All-on-Three - implant - prosthesis - FEM analysis - OT-Bridge - MUA

Authors' Contributions

S.C. and F.G.: Concept/design and data analysis interpretation.

E.M.Z. and F.G.: Drafting article.

S.C.: Critical revision of article and approval of article.

F.M., M.C.P., and C.M.G.: Data collection.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
25 January 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mobilio N, Catapano S. The use of monolithic lithium disilicate for posterior screw-retained implant crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (06) 703-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mobilio N, Fasiol A, Catapano S. Survival rates of lithium disilicate single restorations: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31 (03) 283-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ciabattoni G, Acocella A, Sacco R. Immediately restored full arch-fixed prosthesis on implants placed in both healed and fresh extraction sockets after computer-planned flapless guided surgery. A 3-year follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (06) 997-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Taylor TD. Fixed implant rehabilitation for the edentulous maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991; 6 (03) 329-337
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 17 (04) 232-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pozzi A, Holst S, Fabbri G, Tallarico M. Clinical reliability of CAD/CAM cross-arch zirconia bridges on immediately loaded implants placed with computer-assisted/template-guided surgery: a retrospective study with a follow-up between 3 and 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (Suppl 1): e86-e96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pellegrino G, Grande F, Ferri A, Pisi P, Gandolfi MG, Marchetti C. Three-dimensional radiographic evaluation of the malar bone engagement available for ideal zygomatic implant placement. Methods Protoc 2020; 3 (03) E52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Francischone C, Rigolizzo M. “All-on-4” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: a clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (Suppl 1): e139-e150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Slauch RW, Balshi SF. A retrospective analysis of 800 Brånemark System implants following the All-on-Four™ protocol. J Prosthodont 2014; 23 (02) 83-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Caneva M, Polizzi G. Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing patients rehabilitated with immediately loaded maxillary cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis supported by four or six implants placed using guided surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (05) 965-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Landázuri-Del Barrio RA, Cosyn J, De Paula WN, De Bruyn H, Marcantonio Jr E. A prospective study on implants installed with flapless-guided surgery using the all-on-four concept in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 (04) 428-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (Suppl 3): 97-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90 (02) 121-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CHF, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl 6): 163-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Catapano S, Ferrari M, Mobilio N, Montanari M, Corsalini M, Grande F. Comparative analysis of the stability of prosthetic screws under cyclic loading in implant prosthodontics: an in vitro study. Appl Sci (Basel) 2021; 11 (02) 622
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pozzan MC, Grande F, Mochi Zamperoli E, Tesini F, Carossa M, Catapano S. Assessment of preload loss after cyclic loading in the OT Bridge system in an “All-on-Four” rehabilitation model in the absence of one and two prosthesis screws. Materials (Basel) 2022; 15 (04) 1582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cervino G, Cicciù M, Fedi S, Milone D, Fiorillo L. FEM analysis applied to OT Bridge abutment with Seeger retention system. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (01) 47-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Corsalini M, Barile G, Catapano S. et al. Obturator prosthesis rehabilitation after maxillectomy: functional and aesthetical analysis in 25 patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (23) 12524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ortensi L, Ortensi M, Minghelli A, Grande F. Implant-supported prosthetic therapy of an edentulous patient: clinical and technical aspects. Prosthesis 2020; 2 (03) 140-152
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ortensi L, Martinolli M, Borromeo C. et al. Effectiveness of ball attachment systems in implant retained- and supported-overdentures: a three- to five-year retrospective examination. Dent J 2019; 7 (03) E84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Acampora R, Montanari M, Scrascia R. et al. 1-year evaluation of OT Bridge abutments for immediately loaded maxillary fixed restorations: a multicenter study. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (02) 290-294
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ayna M, Sagheb K, Gutwald R. et al. A clinical study on the 6-year outcomes of immediately loaded three implants for completely edentulous mandibles: “the all-on-3 concept”. Odontology 2020; 108 (01) 133-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Beresford D, Klineberg I. A within-subject comparison of patient satisfaction and quality of life between a two-implant overdenture and a three-implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (06) 1374-1382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cannizzaro G, Cavallari M, Lazzarini M. et al. Immediate loading of three (fixed-on-3) vs four (fixed-on-4) implants supporting cross-arch fixed prostheses: 1-year results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2018; 11 (03) 323-333
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD. All-on-three delayed implant loading concept for the completely edentulous maxilla and mandible: a retrospective 5-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (06) 1584-1592
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RLX, Barão VAR. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C 2016; 69: 715-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ. et al. Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with 1- to 12-year follow-up. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (01) 3-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cook SD, Klawitter JJ, Weinstein AM. The influence of implant geometry on the stress distribution around dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1982; 16 (04) 369-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Brown CU, Norman TL, Kish III VL, Gruen TA, Blaha JD. Time-dependent circumferential deformation of cortical bone upon internal radial loading. J Biomech Eng 2002; 124 (04) 456-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rubo JH, Capello Souza EA. Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12 (02) 105-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, Risitano G. FEM analysis of dental implant-abutment interface overdenture components and parametric evaluation of Equator® and Locator® prosthodontics attachments. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (04) E592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Villefort RF, Diamantino PJS, Zeidler SLVV. et al. Mechanical response of PEKK and PEEK as frameworks for implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prosthesis: 3D finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 115-121
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Holmes DC, Haganman CR, Aquilino SA. Deflection of superstructure and stress concentrations in the IMZ implant system. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7 (03) 239-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Papavasiliou G, Tripodakis AP, Kamposiora P, Strub JR, Bayne SC. Finite element analysis of ceramic abutment-restoration combinations for osseointegrated implants. Int J Prosthodont 1996; 9 (03) 254-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Quaresma SET, Cury PR, Sendyk WR, Sendyk C. A finite element analysis of two different dental implants: stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone. J Oral Implantol 2008; 34 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: biomechanical study of flat top versus conical. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2 (01) 33-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Holmgren K, Sheikholeslam A, Riise C. Effect of a full-arch maxillary occlusal splint on parafunctional activity during sleep in patients with nocturnal bruxism and signs and symptoms of craniomandibular disorders. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69 (03) 293-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Barbier L, Vander Sloten J, Krzesinski G, Schepers E, Van der Perre G. Finite element analysis of non-axial versus axial loading of oral implants in the mandible of the dog. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25 (11) 847-858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Geng JP, Tan KBC, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85 (06) 585-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar