Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(01): 047-053
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715550
Original Article

FEM Analysis Applied to OT Bridge Abutment with Seeger Retention System

Gabriele Cervino
1   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, Messina, Italy
,
Marco Cicciù
1   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, Messina, Italy
,
Simone Fedi
1   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, Messina, Italy
,
Dario Milone
2   Department of Engineering, Messina University, Messina, Italy
,
Luca Fiorillo
1   Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, Messina, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this investigation is to highlight the technical components of a new kind of screw-retained dental implant prosthesis. The hypothesis is whether the OT Bridge (Rhein 83 S.R.L.; Bologna, Italy) system could be applied without secondary screw in the “all-on-four” retention system, thanks to the presence of an internal seeger.

Materials and Methods By using engineering device such as finite element method (FEM) and von Mises investigation, it has been studied how the fixed prosthodontics for full-arch retention can be influenced by the presence of the screw for stabilizing it.

Results In a dental implant, one model with four different configurations of the full-arch prosthesis retainer and the seeger has been investigated and then examined in contrast with or without the passant screw for locking the system. The experiments of this virtual study highlighted different features and mechanical behaviors of prosthodontic attachments.

Conclusion The first two configurations, respectively those in which there are four and three connection screws, are safe and predictable. Therefore, the presence of the seeger significantly improves the stability and the retention of the whole prosthesis.

Keywords

all-on-four - implant - screw - prosthesis - implant–abutment connections - stress distribution - FEM - von Mises


Publication History

Article published online:
31 August 2020

© 2020. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Müller J. Archiv für Anatomie. Physiologie und Wissenschaftliche Medicin 1886; 1886: 1
    Google Scholar
  • 2 De Stefano R, Bruno A, Muscatello MR, Cedro C, Cervino G, Fiorillo L. Fear and anxiety managing methods during dental treatments: a systematic review of recent data. Minerva Stomatol 2019; 68 (06) 317-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 De Stefano R. Psychological factors in dental patient care: odontophobia. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55 (10) 678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cawood JI, Howell RA. Reconstructive preprosthetic surgery. I. Anatomical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991; 20 (02) 75-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Baldini N. et al. Patient-centered rehabilitation of single, partial, and complete edentulism with cemented- or screw-retained fixed dental prosthesis: The First Osstem Advanced Dental Implant Research and Education Center Consensus Conference 2017. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 617-626
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Scrascia R, Fiorillo L, Gaita V, Secondo L, Nicita F, Cervino G. Implant-supported prosthesis for edentulous patient rehabilitation. From temporary prosthesis to definitive with a new protocol: a single case report. Prosthesis 2020; 2 (01) 10-24
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, Turkina AY, Nicita F, Amoroso G, Risitano G. Endo and exoskeleton: new technologies on composite materials. Prosthesis 2020; 2 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Arzukanyan AV, Spagnuolo G, Campagna P, Cicciù M. Application of bioengineering devices for stress evaluation in dentistry: the last 10 years FEM parametric analysis of outcomes and current trends. Minerva Stomatol 2020; 69 (01) 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cervino G, Romeo U, Lauritano F. et al. Fem and Von Mises analysis of OSSTEM®dental implant structural components: evaluation of different direction dynamic loads. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 219-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zarone F, Apicella A, Nicolais L, Aversa R, Sorrentino R. Mandibular flexure and stress build-up in mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14 (01) 103-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1 (01) 11-25
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for “all-on-four” restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31 (02) 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric analysis of the strength in the “Toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009; 58 (1-2) 9-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7 (04) 817-825
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T, Coffey JP. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10 (05) 529-536
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Versluis A, Korioth TW, Cardoso AC. Numerical analysis of a dental implant system preloaded with a washer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14 (03) 337-341
    Google Scholar
  • 17 van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C. et al. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5 (03) 272-281
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106 (03) 721-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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) 592 DOI: 10.3390/ma12040592.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, Risitano G. FEM investigation of the stress distribution over mandibular bone due to screwed overdenture positioned on dental implants. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11 (09) 1512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E. et al. FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cicciù M, Bramanti E, Cecchetti F, Scappaticci L, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM and Von Mises analyses of different dental implant shapes for masticatory loading distribution. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014; 7 (01) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F. et al. FEM and Von Mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: evaluation of different applied materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2017; 2017: 1029574 DOI: 10.1155/2017/1029574.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 DE Vico G, Bonino M, Spinelli D. et al. Rationale for tilted implants: FEA considerations and clinical reports. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2011; 4 (3-4) 23-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Di Salle A, Spagnuolo G, Conte R, Procino A, Peluso G, Rengo C. Effects of various prophylactic procedures on titanium surfaces and biofilm formation. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2018; 48 (06) 373-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Vayron R, Nguyen V-H, Lecuelle B. et al. Comparison of resonance frequency analysis and of quantitative ultrasound to assess dental implant osseointegration. Sensors (Basel) 2018; 18 (05) 1397 DOI: 10.3390/s18051397.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tallarico M, Baldini N, Martinolli M. et al. Do the new hydrophilic surface have any influence on early success rate and implant stability during osseointegration period? Four-month preliminary results from a split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (01) 95-101
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mailath G, Stoiber B, Watzek G, Matejka M. [Bone resorption at the entry of osseointegrated implants–a biomechanical phenomenon. Finite element study]. Z Stomatol 1989; 86 (04) 207-216 Die Knochenresorption an der Eintrittstelle osseointegrierter Implantate–ein biomechanisches Phanomen. Eine Finite-Element-Studie.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. Location of implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible and the consequences for the design of the superstructure. J Oral Rehabil 1994; 21 (01) 47-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Meijer HJ, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJ, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68 (01) 96-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Clift SE, Fisher J, Watson CJ. Finite element stress and strain analysis of the bone surrounding a dental implant: effect of variations in bone modulus. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1992; 206 (04) 233-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lakes RS, Katz JL, Sternstein SS. Viscoelastic properties of wet cortical bone–I. Torsional and biaxial studies. J Biomech 1979; 12 (09) 657-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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
  • 34 Alikhasi M, Rohanian A, Ghodsi S, Kolde AM. Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 71-76
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Eraslan O, Inan O, Secilmis A. The effect of framework design on stress distribution in implant-supported FPDs: a 3-D FEM study. Eur J Dent 2010; 4 (04) 374-382
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Takeshita S, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S. Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems. Dent Mater J 2011; 30 (06) 928-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Keshk AM, Alqutaibi AY, Algabri RS, Swedan MS, Kaddah A. Prosthodontic maintenance and peri-implant tissue conditions for telescopic attachment-retained mandibular implant overdenture: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (04) 559-568
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Herford AS, Cooper TC, Maiorana C, Cicciù M. Vascularized connective tissue flap for bone graft coverage. J Oral Implantol 2011; 37 (02) 279-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Iovino P, Di Sarno A, De Caro V, Mazzei C, Santonicola A, Bruno V. Screwdriver aspiration during oral procedures: a lesson for dentists and gastroenterologists. Prosthesis 2019; 1 (01) 61-68
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Meloni SM, Tallarico M, Pisano M, Xhanari E, Canullo L. Immediate loading of fixed complete denture prosthesis supported by 4-8 implants placed using guided surgery: a 5-year prospective study on 66 patients with 356 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 37 (05) 610-621
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Tallarico M, Meloni SM. Retrospective analysis on survival rate, template-related complications, and prevalence of peri-implantitis of 694 anodized implants placed using computer-guided surgery: results between 1 and 10 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (05) 1162-1171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Mangani F, Barlattani A. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year post-loading. Eur J Oral Implantology 2013; 6 (04) 325-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Immediate loading with a novel implant featured by variable-threaded geometry, internal conical connection and platform shifting: three-year results from a prospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015; 8 (01) 51-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Tallarico M, Scrascia R, Annucci M. et al. Errors in implant positioning due to lack of planning: a clinical case report of new prosthetic materials and solutions. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (08) 1883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar