A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Influence of Implant Supported Prosthesis Framework Material on the Stress Distribution in Peri-Implant Bone in Anterior Mandible: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Nikita Jaiswal
     Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha ,IN
  • Anjana Raut
     Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha ,IN
  • P. C. Mishra
     Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2020/25512

Keywords:

Cobalt Chromium Framework Material, Implant Prosthesis Framework Material, Monolithic Zirconia Implant Prosthesis, Stress, Titanium Framework Material
Prosthodontics

Abstract

Context: Original research. Aims: The aim of the present study to evaluate the effects of prosthetic material on the stress distribution of implant-supported prosthesis in the bone around implants using finite element analysis and to draw a comparison so as to which material causes the least amount of stress on the bone. Settings and Design: In vitro finite element analysis - Comparative study. Methods and Materials: Models of the implants and the mandible were constructed using SOLID WORKS software and then they were transferred to another software ANSYS Work bench for FEA. A four-unit prosthesis was designed in the region of anterior mandible with implants being placed in 32 and 42 regions. The prosthesis was made of different materials in different models, M1 was of made of cobalt chromium framework, M2 was made of Titanium framework, M3 was made of zirconia framework each with layered ceramic. M4 was a monolithic zirconia prosthesis. The values of the Von Mises stresses generated in the implant, superstructure and alveolar bone around were calculated. The total deformation and stress generated in different models were calculated and compared. Statistical analysis used: Von mises Stress Analysis, Unpaired t test. Results: Zirconia and Monolithic zirconia showed comparatively less total deformation and stress levels in peri-implant bone. Titanium prosthesis caused less total deformation and stress distribution as compared to cobalt chromium. Conclusions: The distribution of stress in peri implant bone is evidently dependent on the prosthesis material and different materials cause different amount of deformations as they differ in their clinical properties.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-08

How to Cite

Jaiswal, N., Raut, A., & Mishra, P. C. (2020). A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Influence of Implant Supported Prosthesis Framework Material on the Stress Distribution in Peri-Implant Bone in Anterior Mandible: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), 34(4), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2020/25512

Issue

Volume 34, Issue 4, December 2020

Section

Original Articles

License

All the articles published in JPFA are distributed under a creative commons license. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose).

 

References

Hakan Arinc. Effects of Prosthetic Material and Framework Design on Stress Distribution in Dental Implants and Peripheral Bone: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Med Sci Monit 2018; 24: 4279–4287. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.908208

Kregzde M. A method of selecting the best implant prosthesis design option using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 662–73.

Misch CE, Perel ML,Wang H-L et al. Implant success, survival, and failure. The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent, 2008; 17: 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059

Sannino G, Pozzi A, Schiavetti R, Barlattani A. Stress distribution on a three-unit implant-supported zirconia framework. A 3D finite element analysis and fatigue test. Oral Implantol (Rome), 2012; 5: 11–20.

Chuang SK, Wei LJ, Douglass CW, Dodson TB. Risk factors for dental implant failure: A strategy for the analysis of clustered failure-time observations. J Dent Res, 2002; 81: 572–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910208100814

Sahin S, Cehreli MC, Yalçin E. The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses – a review. J Dent, 2002; 30: 271–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00065-9

Ferreira MB, Barí£o VA, Faverani LP. The role of superstructure material on the stress distribution in mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures. A CT-based 3D-FEA. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2014; 35: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2013.10.022

Gomes í‰A, Barí£o VAR, Rocha EP. Effect of metalceramic or all-ceramic superstructure materials on stress distribution in a single implant supported prosthesis: Threedimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 1202–9.

Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1983; 49: 843–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X

Raigrodski AJ, Hillstead MB, Meng GK, Chung K-H. Survival and complications of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent, 2012; 107:170–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60051-1

Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: A prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent, 2006; 96: 237–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.010

Motta AB, Pereira LC, da Cunha ARCC, Duda FP. The influence of the loading mode on the stress distribution on the connector region of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic fixed partial denture. Artif Organs, 2008; 32: 283–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2008.00544.x

Bacchi A, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF, dos Santos MBF. Stress distribution in fixed-partial prosthesis and periimplant bone tissue with different framework materials and vertical misfit levels: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Sci, 2013; 55: 239–44. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.55.239

Möllers K, Pätzold W, Parkot D. Influence of connector design and material composition and veneering on the stress distribution of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A finite element study. Dent Mater, 2011; 27: 171–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.009

Borba M, Duan Y, Griggs JA. Effect of ceramic infrastructure on the failure behavior and stress distribution of fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater, 2015; 31: 413–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.008

Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. Feb 2008; 19: 119–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x

Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses. Chicago. Quintessence; 1985. p. 175–86.

Holmes DC, Loftus JT. Influence of bone quality on stress distribution for endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol 1997; 23: 104–11.

Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 633–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90442-4

Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Sevimay M, Soykan E, Unsal E. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.10.018

Keyoung Jin Chun and Jong Yeop Lee. Comparative study of mechanical properties of dental restorative materials and dental hard tissues in compressive loads. J. Dent. Biomech. Volume 5: 1 –6.

Meriç G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, et al. Biomechanical comparison of two different collar structured implants supporting 3-unit fixed partial denture: A 3-D FEM study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012; 70: 61–71. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2 011.597775

M. Sevimay, F. Turhan, M. A. Kilicxarslan,and G. Eskitascioglu. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93: 227–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.019

Koosha S, Mirhashemi FS. An investigation of three types of tooth implant supported fixed prosthesis designs with 3D finite element analysis. J Dent (Tehran) 2013; 10: 51–63.