A Finite Element Analysis on Stress Distribution in Overdenture Implants and Implant Abutment Interface Using Different Attachment Systems: An In Vitro StudyFunding None.
Introduction The overdenture is an alternative to fixed implant-supported prosthesis for its relatively low-cost and in clinical cases where it is impossible to place multiple implants with appropriate number and arrangement in the arch to support a fixed prosthesis. In implant-supported overdentures, many attachments such as bars, ball, and magnets can be used. The anchorage system affects the retention and stability of the overdenture as well as the load transfer to the implant and the bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the exerted stresses on implants and implant–abutment interface by comparing different attachment systems used for implant-supported maxillary and mandibular overdentures using finite-element analysis.
Materials and Methods Stress distribution in five different models with different attachments were evaluated using finite-element analysis. The studied attachment systems were Ball/O-ring and bar-clip attachments. Three models in mandible were studied, two implants with ball attachments, two implants with bar, and four implants connected with a bar. In maxilla, two models were studied, four implants with ball attachments, and four implants connected with bar. Forces were applied bilaterally on each model in the canine and molar region separately. The forces applied were 35N axially, 70N obliquely, and 10N horizontally.
Results The ball attachments models showed the highest amount of stresses on the bone and on the implants in maxilla and mandible. The bar-clip attachment with four implants showed least stress in maxilla as well as in the mandible. The bar on four implants has better stress distribution as compared with the bar on the two implants.
02 April 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 El-Anwar MI, Mohammed MS. Comparison between two low profile attachments for implant mandibular overdentures. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 2014; 12 (01) 45-53
- 2 van Kampen FMC, van der Bilt A, Cune MS, Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Bosman F. Masticatory function with implant-supported overdentures. J Dent Res 2004; 83 (09) 708-711
- 3 John J, Rangarajan V, Savadi RC, Satheesh KumarKS, Satheesh KumarP. A finite element analysis of stress distribution in the bone, around the implant supporting a mandibular overdenture with ball/o ring and magnetic attachment. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012; 12 (01) 37-44
- 4 Mariano LO, Sartori EA, Broilo JR, Shinkai RS, Corso L, Marczak RJ. Stresses in implant-supported overdentures with bone resorption: a 3-D finite element analysis. Rev Odonto Ciênc 2012; 27 (01) 41-46
- 5 Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13 (03) 369-376
- 6 Daas M, Dubois G, Bonnet AS, Lipinski P, Rignon-Bret C. A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30 (02) 218-225
- 7 Arat Bilhan S, Baykasoglu C, Bilhan H, Kutay O, Mugan A. Effect of attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular overdentures on stress distribution: a computed tomography-based 3D finite element analysis. J Biomech 2015; 48 (01) 130-137
- 8 Satpathy S, Babu CL, Shetty S, Raj B. Stress distribution patterns of implant supported overdentures-analog versus finite element analysis: a comparative in-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015; 15 (03) 250-256
- 9 Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16 (02) 128-134