Evaluation of stress distribution of fixed partial dentures over straight and inclined implants in various macrodesigns by the photoelastic stress analysis method

Serhat Emre Ozkir; Hakan Terzioglu; Ahmet Kursad Culhaoglu

doi:10.4103/2278-9626.112321

European Journal of General Dentistry, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2013; 2(02): 163-168
DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.112321

Original Article

Evaluation of stress distribution of fixed partial dentures over straight and inclined implants in various macrodesigns by the photoelastic stress analysis method

Serhat Emre Ozkir

Department of Prosthodontics, Afyon Kocatepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

,

Hakan Terzioglu

¹Department of Prosthodontics, Ankara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Besevler, Turkey

,

Ahmet Kursad Culhaoglu

²Doktor Mediha Eldem Sokak. No: 70/11 Kocatepe, Ankara, Turkey

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

als PDF herunterladen

Abstract

Aims: Tooth loss results in many problems, such as functional and esthetic problems, which may also have psychological implications. Dental implants are revolutionary improvements in functional and esthetic rehabilitation. Biomechanics is the one of the main factors for achieving the long-term success of implant-supported prostheses. It is important to distinguish the effects of macrodesign differences over stress distribution. Materials and Methods: In this study, the photoelastic response of four different types of implants that were inserted with different angulations and restored with 3-unit fixed bridges were comparatively analyzed. The implant types investigated were screw cylinder (ITI, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland), stepped cylinder (Frialit2, Friadent GmbH, Manheim, Germany), root form (Camlog Rootline, Alatatec, Wilshelm, Germany) and cylindrical implant with microthreads on implant neck (Astra, AstraTech, Mölndal, Sweden). In the test models, one of the implants was inserted straight while the other one was aligned mesially with 15° angles. Superstructures were prepared as 3-unit fixed partial denture FPD restorations. A 150 N loading was applied to the restorations throughout the test. Observations showed that misaligned implants caused less stresses than the straight implants, but the stress concentrations were not homogenous. Results: The comparison of implant designs showed that there were no significant differences between straight implants; however, between inclined implants, the most favorable stress distribution was seen with the stepped cylinder implants. The least favorable stress concentration was observed around the root-formed implants. Microthreads around the implant neck appeared to be effective in homogenous stress distribution. Observations showed that misaligned implants caused less stresses than the straight implants but the stress concentrations were not homogenous. Conclusion: While loading on a single implant, the remaining implant was not very effective at stress distribution. Cylinder type implants were better at stress distribution then the tapered implants while stress concentrations were lower around the inclined implants than the straight implants.

Keywords

Biomechanics - inclined implants - implant macrodesigns - implant-supported fixed partial denture - photoelastic stress analysis - stress distribution

PDF (1114 kb)

Referenzen

References
1 Lemon s JE. Biomaterials, biomechanics, tissue healing, and immediate function dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2004;5:318-24.
2 Kopp CD. Overdentures and osseointegration; case studies and treatment planning. Dent Clin North Am 1990;34:729-39.
3 Nagasao T, Kobayashi M, Tsuchiya Y, Kaneko T, Nakajima T. Finite element analysis of stresses around fixtures in various reconstructed mandibular models. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 2002;30:170-7.
4 Cehreli MC, Duyck J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Implant design and interface force transfer: A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004;15:249-57.
5 Özçelik TB, Ersoy AE. An investigation of tooth/implant-supported prostheses designs with two different stress analysis methods: An in vitro study. J Prost Dent 2007;16:107-16.
6 Brosh T, Pilo R, Sudai D. The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: Comparison between two experimental techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:328-34.
7 Ishigaki S, Nakano T, Yamada S, Nakamura T, Takashima F. Biomachanical stress in bone surrounding an implant under simulated chewing. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003;14:97-102.
8 Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: Considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004;15:401-12.
9 Tada S, Stegaroýu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 2003;18:357-68.
10 Yokoyama S, Wakabayasashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:234-40.
11 Himlova L, Dostlova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: A finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20-5.
12 Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Bosman F, Steen WH. A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:147-57.
13 Nishimura RD, Ochiai KT, Caputo AA., Jeong CM. Photoelastic stress analysis of load transfer to implants and natural teeth comparing rigid and semi-rigid connectors. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:696-703.
14 Hekimoglu C, Anýl N, Cehreli MC. Analysis of strain around endosseous dental implants opposing natural teeth or implants. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:441-6.
15 Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, Tsuga K, Akagawa Y. Biomechanical effects of double or wide implants for single molar replacement in the posterior mandibular region. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:842-5.
16 Geng JP, Beng WX, Tan KBC, Liu GR. Finite element analysis of an osseointegrated stepped screw dental implant. J Oral Implantol 2004;4:223-33.
17 Huang H, Huang J, Ko C, Hsu J, Chang C, Chen MY. Effects of splinted prosthesis supported a wide implant or two implants: A three dimensional finite element analsis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2005;16:466-72.
18 Siegele D, Soltesz U. Numerical investigations of the influence of implant shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 1989;4:333-40.
19 Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 1997;8:173-9.
20 Geng JP, Ma QS, Xu W, Tan KB, Liu GR. Finite element analysis of four thread-form configurations in a stepped cylinder screw implant. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:233-9.
21 Akkocaoglu M, Uysal S, Tekdemir I, Akca K, Cehreli MC. Implant design and intraosseous stability of immediately placed implants: A human cadaver study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2005;16:202-9.
22 Sethi A, Kaus T, Sochor P, Axmann-Krcmar D, Chanavaz M. Evolution of the concept of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: 14-year clinical data. Implant Dent 2002;11:41-51.
23 Satoh T, Maeda Y, Komiyama Y. Biomechanical rationale for intentionally inclined implants in the posterior mandible using 3D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxilllofac Implants 2005;20:533-9.
24 Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindstrom H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxilllofac Implants 2000;15:405-14.
25 Sütpideler, M, Eckert, SE, Zobitz, M, An, K. Finite element analysis of effect of prosthesis height, angle of force application, and implant offset on supporting bone. Int J Oral Maxilofac Implants 2004;19:819-25.
26 Meredith, N. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:491-501.
27 O′Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Influence of implant diameter on the primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004;15:474-80.
28 Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Imp Res 2002;13:252-9.
29 Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comperative evaluation of implant design: Influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. Clin Oral Impl Res 2005;16:486-94.
30 Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Sennebry L, Bergstorm C, Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: A 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:173-80.
31 Holmgren EP, Seckinger RJ, Kilgren LM, Mante F. Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis-a two-dimensional comperative study examine the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:80-8.
32 Mailath, G., Stobier, B., Watzck, G., Matejka, M. Bone resorbtion at the entry of osseointegrated implants-a biomechanical phenomenon. Finite element study. Z Stomatol 1989;86:207-16.
33 Wang TM, Leu LJ, Wang JS, Lin LD. Effects of prosthesis materials an prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: A numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxilllofac Implants 2002;17:231-7.
34 Guichet DL, Yoshinobu D, Caputo AA. Effect of splinting and interproksimal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:528-35.
35 Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH, Becker PJ. Evaluation of impression accuracy of osseointegrated implant supported superstructure. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:555-61.