Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Tooth-Implant-Supported Prostheses: Impact of Periodontal Support, Tooth Count, and Implants
Stress Distribution in Tooth-Implant-Supported Prostheses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31661/gmj.v13iSP1.3608Keywords:
Keywords: Tooth-Implant-Supported Prosthesis; Finite Element Analysis; Periodontal Support; Stress; Von Mises StressAbstract
Background: Biomechanical factors are crucial for the success of tooth/implant-supported prostheses. Despite advancements in implantology, connecting natural teeth to implants remains challenging due to differences in movement, leading to potential complications. This study investigated the impact of periodontal support, number of teeth, and implants on stress distribution in tooth-implant-supported prostheses using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis. Material and Methods: This study utilized 3D finite element analysis to evaluate six virtual tooth/implant-supported prostheses with two levels of periodontal support (normal and weak) and three bridge designs (three units, four units with two dental abutments, and four units with two implants). To create the mandibular bone model, the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data from a middle-aged patient was used. One ITI implant (4.1 × 10 mm) was used for the fixture model. Models of teeth and bridges were designed according to the principles of metal-ceramic prosthesis design. A static force of 250 N was applied in vertical and oblique directions (at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis). Maximum Von Mises stress was calculated in megapascals, and stress contour diagrams were generated. Results: Poor periodontal support resulted in a slight increase in stress on the implant and bone. Increasing the number of teeth and implants significantly reduced the stress on the implant and bone. Stress variations were notably greater when applying oblique forces compared to vertical forces. Conclusion: A tooth with a crown-to-root ratio of 1:1 remains suitable as an abutment. Increasing the number of teeth and implants, along with occlusal adjustment, is recommended to reduce stress in the bone and minimize lateral forces applied to the prosthesis, thereby decreasing the risk of marginal bone loss.
References
Aggarwal S, Aggarwal S, Goswami R, Mowar A, Tomar N, Saxena D. An in vivo study to assess and compare the angular, linear, and depth deviation as well as the difference in bone density of implants placed using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing fabricated three-dimensional guides versus the implants placed using bone pen kit in maxillary and mandibular ridges. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. 2023;23(3):266-76.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_193_23
PMid:37929366 PMCid:PMC10467322
Lang NP, Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years: Combined tooth-implant‐supported FPDs. Clinical oral implants research. 2004 Dec;15(6):643-53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01118.x
PMid:15533125
Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ. Biomechanical interactions in tooth-implant‐supported fixed partial dentures with variations in the number of splinted teeth and connector type: a finite element analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2008;19(1):107-17.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01363.x
PMid:17944965
Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Jones JD, University of Colorado Health Science Center D. Guidelines for splinting implants. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2000;84(2):210-4.
https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.108672
PMid:10946340
Lindh T, Gunne J, Nyström E, Bäck T. Implant versus tooth‐implant supported prostheses in the posterior maxilla: a 2‐year report. Clinical oral implants research. 2001;12(5):441-9.
https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120503.x
PMid:11564103
Nickenig HJ, Schäfer C, Spiekermann H. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth-implant‐supported fixed partial dentures. Clinical oral implants research. 2006;17(5):506-11.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01259.x
PMid:16958689
Naert IE, Duyck JA, Hosny MM, Quirynen M, Van Steenberghe D. Freestanding and tooth‐implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: Part II: An up to 15‐years radiographic evaluation. Clinical oral implants research. 2001;12(3):245-51.
https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003245.x
PMid:11359482
Lindh T, Dahlgren S, Gunnarsson K, Josefsson T, Nilson H, Wilhelmsson P, et al. Tooth-implant supported fixed prostheses: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14(4):321-8.
Lin C-L, Chang S-H, Wang J-C, Chang W-J. Mechanical interactions of an implant/tooth-supported system under different periodontal supports and number of splinted teeth with rigid and non-rigid connections. Journal of dentistry. 2006;34(9):682-91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.12.011
PMid:16439048
Hoffmann O, Zafiropoulos G-G. Tooth-implant connection: a review. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2012;38(2):194-200.
https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00071
PMid:21091344
Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G. Tooth-implant connection: some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(3):334-41.
https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130315.x
PMid:12010166
Lin CL, Wang JC. Nonlinear finite element analysis of a splinted implant with various connectors and occlusal forces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(3):331-40.
Cardoso M, Corazza PH, de Assis Claro CA, Borges ALS, Bottino MA, Junior LN. Stress distribution around implants with abutments of different materials: a comparison of photoelastic, strain gage and finite element analyses. Revista Odonto Ciencia. 2015;30(4):132-7.
https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-6523.2015.4.14816
Huang Y-C, Ding S-J, Yuan C, Yan M. Biomechanical analysis of rigid and non-rigid connection with implant abutment designs for tooth-implant supported prosthesis: A finite element analysis. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2022;17(1):490-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2021.07.020
PMid:35028075 PMCid:PMC8739742
Nelson SJ. Wheeler's Dental Anatomy, Physiology and Occlusion. 1st SAE-E-book: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015 May 25.
Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang SH, Chen ST. Evaluation of Stress Induced by Implant Type, Number of Splinted Teeth, and Variations in Periodontal Support in Tooth‐Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: A Non‐Linear Finite Element Analysis. Journal of periodontology. 2010;81(1):121-30.
https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090331
PMid:20059424
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(1):130-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.022
PMid:25443880
Zhiyong L, Arataki T, Shimamura I, Kishi M. The influence of prosthesis designs and loading conditions on the stress distribution of tooth-implant supported prostheses. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2004;45(4):213-21.
https://doi.org/10.2209/tdcpublication.45.213
PMid:15960158
Lin CL, Wang JC, Kuo YC. Numerical simulation on the biomechanical interactions of tooth/implant-supported system under various occlusal forces with rigid/non-rigid connections. J Biomech. 2006;39(3):453-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.12.020
PMid:16389085
Pratheep KV, Abraham A, Annapoorni H, Vigneshwaran S. Comparative evaluation of stresses in tooth implant connected fixed partial denture by varying the implant design and position: a 3D finite element study. Indian J Dent Res. 2013;24(4):439-45.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.118388
PMid:24047835
Burak Özcelik T, Ersoy E, Yilmaz B. Biomechanical evaluation of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with various nonrigid connector positions: a finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(1):16-28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00654.x
PMid:21251117
Chen XY, Zhang CY, Nie EM, Zhang MC. Treatment planning of implants when 3 mandibular posterior teeth are missing: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Implant Dent. 2012;21(4):340-3.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31825cbc67
PMid:22814561
Narde J, Ahmed N, Marrapodi MM, Siurkel Y, Ronsivalle V, Cicciù M, et al. Evaluation and assessment of the survival of tooth implant supported prosthesis in tooth and implant supported rehabilitation cases with metal frameworks. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):379.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04117-9
PMid:38519932 PMCid:PMC10960445
Chen Y, Wang C, Huang Y, Feng T, Zou H, Fan Y. Biomechanical evaluation of the natural abutment teeth in combined tooth-implant-supported telescopic prostheses: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2017;20(9):967-79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2017.1319941
PMid:28460543
Nitin KS, Padmanabhan TV, Kumar VA, Parthasarathi N, Uma Maheswari M, Kumar SM. A three-dimensional finite element analysis to evaluate stress distribution tooth in tooth implant-supported prosthesis with variations in non-rigid connector design and location. Indian J Dent Res. 2018;29(5):634-40.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_538_16
PMid:30409945
Huang L-S, Huang Y-C, Yuan C, Ding S-J, Yan M. Biomechanical evaluation of bridge span with three implant abutment designs and two connectors for tooth-implant supported prosthesis: A finite element analysis. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2023;18(1):248-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2022.05.026
PMid:36643278 PMCid:PMC9831793
Mosharraf R, Molaei P, Fathi A, Isler S. Investigating the Effect of Nonrigid Connectors on the Success of Tooth-and-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Prostheses in Maxillary Anterior Region: A Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Int J Dent. 2021;2021:5977994.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5977994
PMid:34804166 PMCid:PMC8604583
Verma V, Hazari P, Mahajan H, Yadav NS, Verma P, Narwani S. Comparison of Stress Distribution in Fixed Partial Prosthesis Restored with Different Combination of Support: A Finite Element Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022;23(12):1218-23.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3446
PMid:37125519
Ebadian B, Fathi A, Tabatabaei S. Stress Distribution in 5-Unit Fixed Partial Dentures with a Pier Abutment and Rigid and Nonrigid Connectors with Two Different Occlusal Schemes: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. International Journal of Dentistry. 2023;2023:3347197.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3347197
PMid:36778158 PMCid:PMC9908362
Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(4):401-12.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01022.x
PMid:15248874
Ozçelik T, Ersoy AE. An investigation of tooth/implant-supported fixed prosthesis designs with two different stress analysis methods: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2007;16(2):107-16.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00176.x
PMid:17362420
Maezawa N, Shiota M, Kasugai S, Wakabayashi N. Three-dimensional stress analysis of tooth/lmplant-retained long-span fixed dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(5):710-8.
De Oliveira JC, Sordi MB, da Cruz ACC, Zanetti RV, Betiol EAG, Vieira SR, et al. Number of dental abutments influencing the biomechanical behavior of tooth-implant-supported fixed partial dentures: A finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2020;14(4):228-34.
https://doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2020.047
PMid:33575012 PMCid:PMC7867679
Michalakis KX, Calvani P, Hirayama H. Biomechanical considerations on tooth-implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Dent Biomech. 2012;3:1758736012462025.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1758736012462025
PMid:23255882 PMCid:PMC3487629
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Galen Medical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
