Analysis of functional stress on the acrylic resin interface/ metallic infrastructure of the mandibular complete denture supported by implants when submitted to distinct standards of occlusion
Keywords:
Dental occlusion, Dental prothesis implant supported, BiomechanicsAbstract
This work analyzed, both qualitatively and comparatively and by means of the three-dimensional finite elements method (FEM 3D), the tensions generated in the interface between the acrylic resin and the metallic infrastructure when functional stress is applied to the cantilever region, in a mandibular complete denture supported by implants. A FEM 3D of a mandibular complete denture supported by implants, of the Branemark protocol type, with 12 mm of a bilateral cantilever, was developed. The SolidWorks® program was used in the pre- and post- processing of data. In the first simulation, the loading was applied on the occlusal surface of the first pre- molar; in the second simulation, it was applied on the first and second pre-molars; and in the third simulation, it was applied on the first and second pre- molars as well as on the first molar. The results obtained could be viewed three-dimensionally via images with scales and graphs showing that the occlusal standard in the cantilever region generated a distribution of stress that was similar in the three simulations, with the highest stress levels located in the region of the first implant in all cases. However, as the loadings were dislocated to the distal region, the stress increased considerably. It could be concluded that the greater the extension of the cantilever, the more compromised the interface between the acrylic resin and the metallic infrastructure will be. Moreover, regardless of the length of the cantilever, the greatest stress is located at the interface between the acrylic resin and the metallic infrastructure surrounding the implant region located closest to the cantilever on the work side.
Downloads
References
Guichet DL, Yoshinobu D, Caputo AA. Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restoration. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:528-35.
Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A. The influence of occlusal loading location on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: a three-dimensional finite element study. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:144-50.
Lin CL, Wang JC, Kuo YC. Numerical simulation on the biomechanical interactions of tooth/implant-supported system under various oclusal forces with rigid/non-rigid connections.J Biomech. 2006;39:453-63.
Krammer A, Weber H, Benzing U. Implant and prosthetic treatment of the edentulous maxilla using a bar-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7:251-5.
Ogawa T, Ogimoto T, Koyano K. Validity of the examination method of oclusal contact pattern relating to mandibular position. J Dent. 2000;28:23-29.
Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneu SL. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:241-7.
McCartney P, Hohn W. Cantilever rests: an alternative to the unsupported distal cantilever of osseo integrated implant-supported prostheses for the endentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:817-9.
Shacketon JL, Carr L, Slabbert JC, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:23-6.
Bosse LP, Taylor TD. Problems associated with implant rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae. Dent Clin North Am. 1998;42:117-27.
Eckerty SE, Laney WR. Pacient evaluation and prosthodontic treatment planning for osseointegrated implants. Dent Clin North Am. 1989;3:185-92.
Watson RM, Davis DM, Forman GH, Coward T. Considerations in design and fabrication of maxillary implants-super-prothesis. Int J Phosthodont. 1991;4:232-9.
Bidez MW, McLoughlin SW, Chen Y, English CE. Finite element analysis and four abutment hader bar designs. Implant Dent. 1993;2:171-6.
Pokorny GM, Solar P. Biomechanical of endosseous implant. Quintessence Publishing;1996.
White SN, Caputo AA, Anderkvist T. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:493-9.
McAlarney ME, Stauropoulos D. Theoretical cantilever lengths versus clinical cases. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:332-43.
Assif D, Marshak B, Horowitz A. Analysis of load transfer and stress distribution by an implant-supported fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75:285-91.
Benzing UR, Gall H, Weber H. Biomechanical aspects of two different implant-prosthetic concepts for edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:188-98.
Orsier JF. Biomechanical local analysis of cantlevers implant systems. J Oral Implantol.1991;17:40-7.
Lundgren D, Falk H, Laurell L. The influence of number and distribution of occlusal cantilever contacts on closing and chewing forces in dentition with implant-supported fixed prostheses occluding with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:277-83.
Skalak R. Aspects of biomechanics considerations. In Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Quintessence Books; 1985.
