The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF CANTILEVER AND IMPLANT ORIENTATION ON STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN A MANDIBULAR IMPLANT-SUPPORTED BAR OVERDENTURE

하악피개의치에서 임플랜트의 식립각도에 따른 칸틸레버 길이의 감소효과가 응력분포 양상에 미치는 영향 -삼차원 유한요소법을 이용한 분석-

  • Park, Jun-Soo (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Lee, Sung-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Woo, Yi-Hyung (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
  • 박준수 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소) ;
  • 이성복 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소) ;
  • 권긍록 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소) ;
  • 우이형 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실, 경희대학교 구강생물학 연구소)
  • Published : 2007.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: Implant inclination and cantilever loading increse loads distributed to implants, potentially causing biomechanical complications. Controversy exists regarding the effect of the intentionally distal-inclined implant for the reduction of the cantilever length. Purpose: This study investigated the stress distribution at the bone/implant interface and prostheses with 3D finite element stress analysis by using four different cantilever lengths and implant inclinations in a mandibular implant-supported bar overdenture. Material and methods: Four 3-D finite element models were created in which 4 implants were placed in the interforaminal area and had four different cantilver lengths(10, 6.9, 4 and 1.5mm) and distal implant inclinations$(0^{\circ},\;15^{\circ},\;30^{\circ}\;and\;45^{\circ})$ respectively. Vortical forces of 120N and oblique forces of 45N were applied to the molar area. Stress distribution in the bone around the implant was analysed under different distal implant inclinations. Results: Analysis of the von Mises stresses for the bone/implant interfaces and prostheses revealed that the maximum stresses occurred at the most distal bone/implant interface and the joint of bar and abutment, located on the loaded side and significantly incresed with the implant inclinations, especially over $45^{\circ}$. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was suggested that too much distal inclination over 45 degrees can put the implant at risk of overload and within the dimension of the constant sum of a anterior-posterior spread and cantilever length, a distal implant inclination compared to cantilever length had the much larger effect on the stress distribution at the bone/implant interface.

Keywords

References

  1. Melas F, Marcenes W, Wright PS. Oral health impact on daily performance in patients with implant-stabillized over-dentures and patients with conventional complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001:16:700-12
  2. Adell R, Lekholm B, Rockler B, Branemark P-I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981:10:387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  3. Adell R, Eriksson BO, Lekholm U, et al. A long term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990:5:347-59
  4. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long term efficiency of currently used dental implant: A review and proposed criteria of success. J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986:1:11-25
  5. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L, Osseointegrated oral implants: A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Novelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988;59:287-96 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1988.59.5.287
  6. Adell R. Long term treatment results. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence: 1985. p.175-86
  7. Misch CE. Prosthetic options in implant dentistry. In: Misch CEo Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed.. Missouri: CV Mosby:1999. p.67-72, p.143-144, p.187-188, p.311-314
  8. Haraldson T, Jemt T, Stalblad PA, Lekholm U. Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Scand J Dent Res 1988: 96:235-42
  9. Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:129-34
  10. Hutton JE. Heath MR. Chai JY. et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995:10:33-42
  11. Johns RB. Jemt T. Heath MR. A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992:7:513-22
  12. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb GA. Albrektsson T. editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence: 1985. p.199-209
  13. Goodacre CJ, Kan JYK. Rungcharassa-eng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999: 81:537-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  14. Naert I, De Clercq M. Theuniers G. Schepers E. Overdentures supported by osseointegrated fixtures for the edentulous mandible: A 2.5-Year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988:3:191-6
  15. Mona E. McAlarney. Dimitrios N. Stavropoulos Theoretical cantilever lengths versus clinical variables in fifty-five clinical cases. J Prosthet Dent 2000:83:332-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70137-5
  16. Rangert B. Sullivan RM. Jemt TM. Load-factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997:12:360-70
  17. Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ, Anand SC, Schuessler R, Stress analysis of porous rooted dental implants. J Dent Res 1976:55:727-7
  18. Giulio M. Massimo L. Paolo P. Giulio P. Mandibular implant-retained overdentue: Finite Element Analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998:13:369-376
  19. Takuya S. Yoshinobu M. Yataro K. Biomechanical rationale for intentionally inclined implants in the posterior mandible using 3D Finite Element Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:533-39
  20. Roxana S. Takahiro S. Haruka K. Osamu M. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:82-90
  21. Atilla S. Sungur G. Finite element analysis of the effects of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1996:76:165-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90301-7
  22. Arthur M. Rodriguez. Steven A. Aquilino. Peter S. Lund. Cantilever and implant biomechanics: A review of the literature. Part 1. J Prosthod 1994:3:41-46 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1994.tb00124.x
  23. Arthur M. Rodriguez. Steven A. Aquilino. Peter S. Lund. Cantilever and implant biomechanics: A review of the literature. Part 2. J Prosthod 1994:3:114-118 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1994.tb00138.x
  24. Sawako Y. Noriyuki W. Makoto S. Takashi O. Stress analysis in edentulous mandibular bone supporting implantretained 1-piece of multiple superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 2005;20:578-583
  25. Skalak R. Aspects of biomechanical considerations. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb GA. Albrektsson T. editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence: 1985. p.117-28
  26. Meijer HJA, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJM, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: Influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992:68:96-102 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90293-J
  27. English C. The critical A-P spread. Implant Soc J 1990:1:2-3
  28. David R. Federick, Angelo A. Caputo. Effects of overdenture retention designs and implant orientations on load transfer characteristics. J Prosthet Dent 1996: 76:624-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90441-2
  29. L. Barbier, J Vander Sloten, G Krzesinski, E Schepers. Finite element analysis of nonaxial loading of oral implants in the mandible of the dog. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1998:25:847-858 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00318.x
  30. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. 'All-on-four' immediate-function concept with Branemark system implants for completely edentulous mandible via retrospective clinical study. Clin implant Dent Relat Res 2003:5:2-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x
  31. Robert G. Craig. Chap 4. Mechanical properties. In: Robert G. Craig. Restorative dental materials. 8th ed., Missouri: CV Mosby: 1989. p.82
  32. Alper Cagar, Cemal A, Julide O, Caner Y, Turan K. Effects of mesiodistal inclination of implants on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006:21:36-44
  33. Reilly DT, Burstein AH. The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomech 1975:8:393-405 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(75)90075-5