The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles


3D Finite Element Analysis to Assess the Stress Distribution Pattern in Mandibular Implant-supported Overdenture with Different Bar Heights

Shikha Joshi, Sandeep Kumar, Shashikala Jain, Rajnish Aggarwal, Sunita Choudhary, Nandalur K Reddy

Keywords : Bar heights, Dental implants, Finite element analysis, Overdenture, Stress analysis

Citation Information : Joshi S, Kumar S, Jain S, Aggarwal R, Choudhary S, Reddy NK. 3D Finite Element Analysis to Assess the Stress Distribution Pattern in Mandibular Implant-supported Overdenture with Different Bar Heights. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):794-800.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2599

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: Proper stress distribution on dental implants is necessary in bar-retained implant overlay dentures. The purpose of the study is to comparatively assess the stress distribution pattern on the crestal bone at the bone–implant interface due to different bar heights using finite element models (FEMs). Materials and methods: Eight 3D FEMs were developed from mandibular overdentures with two implants in the canine region separated by a distance of 20 mm. In these models, four different bar heights from the mucosa (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 mm) with 12 mm occlusal plane height were analyzed. A unilateral and a bilateral vertical load of 150 N were applied to the central occlusal fossa of the first molar and the stress of bone around the implant was analyzed by finite element analysis (FEA). Results: By increasing the bar height, the maximum stress values around implants on the crestal bone were found to be increased in unilateral and bilateral loading models. In unilateral loading models, the maximum stress was found in a model with a 2 mm bar height (0.46 MPa) on the distal side of the ipsilateral implant, and in bilateral loading cases, the maximum stress was also found in a model with a 2 mm bar height (0.456 MPa). Conclusion: As the vertical cantilever increases (here the bar height), the maximum stress on the crestal bone increases. A minimum of 0.5 mm of space is sufficient between the mucosa and the inferior border of the bar to maintain oral hygiene. Clinical significance: From the present study, it can be concluded that an increase in bar height causes an increase in stress levels on the peri-implant crestal bone.

  1. Bagde AD, Jaju SB, et al. A review on FEM analysis of mandibular overdenture implant. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 2013;2(6): 2137–2144.
  2. Cune M, Burgers M, et al. Mandibular overdenture retained by two implants: 10 year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23(4): 310–317.
  3. Barao VAR, Assunsao WG, et al. Finite element analysis to compare complete denture and implant-retained overdentures with different attachment systems. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20(4):1066–1071. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181abb395.
  4. El-Anwar MI, Mohammed MS. Comparison between two low profile attachments for implant mandibular overdentures. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 2014;12:45–53.
  5. Ebadian B, Talebi S, et al. Stress analysis of mandibular implant-retained overdenture with independent attachment system: effect of restoration space and attachment height. Gen Dent 2015;63(1):61–67.
  6. Rismanchian M, Dakhilalian M, et al. Implant-retained mandibular bar-supported overlay dentures: a finite element stress analysis of four different bar heights. J Oral Implantol 2012;38(2):133–139. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00037.1.
  7. Kim M-J, Hong S-O. Finite element analysis on stress distribution of maxillary implant-retained overdentures depending on the Bar attachment design and palatal coverage. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:85–93. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.2.85.
  8. Ebadian B, Farzin M, et al. Evaluation of stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular overdenture with different vertical restorative spaces: a finite element analysis. Dent Res J 2012;9(6):741–747.
  9. Kumar PS, Satheesh KKS, et al. Force transfer and stress distribution in an implant-supported overdenture retained with a hader bar attachment: a finite element analysis. ISRN Dent 2013;2013:369147. DOI: 10.1155/2013/369147.
  10. Vafaei F, Khoshhal M, et al. Comparative stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular ball-supported and bar-supported overlay dentures: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2011;37(4): 421–429. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00057.
  11. Satpathy S, Satish Babu CL, et al. Stress distribution patterns of implant supported overdentures-analog vs finite element analysis: a comparative in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15(3): 250–256. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.165324.
  12. da Silva DP, Cazal C, et al. Photoelastic stress analysis surrounding implant-supported prosthesis and alveolar ridge on mandibular overdentures. Int J Dent 2010;780670. DOI: 10.1155/2010/780670.
  13. Raghavendra Reddy K, Thumati P. Influence of implant with different dimensions and designs in ideal stress distribution in bone for application in compromised situations: analysis by three-dimensional finite element method. J Dent Implants 2014;4(2):109–114.
  14. Barao VAR, Delben JA, et al. Comparison of different designs of implant-retained overdentures and fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis on stress distribution in edentulous mandible—a computed tomography-based three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 2013;46:1312–1320. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.02.008.
  15. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, et al. Editorial. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(2): 123–124.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.