The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Stress Distribution and Deformation of Four Prosthetic Materials in Full-mouth Rehabilitation with Implants: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Study

Yemineni Bhavan Chand, Jaideep Mahendra, Nasina Jigeesh, Little Mahendra, Lakshmi Shivasubramanian, Shareen Babu Perika

Keywords : Finite element analysis, Implant prosthesis, PEEK, Trinia,Deformation

Citation Information : Chand YB, Mahendra J, Jigeesh N, Mahendra L, Shivasubramanian L, Perika SB. Comparison of Stress Distribution and Deformation of Four Prosthetic Materials in Full-mouth Rehabilitation with Implants: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (11):1210-1217.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2959

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the von Mises stress distribution and deformation on the implant, abutment, and abutment screw using metal-ceramic, zirconia, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and Trinia as prosthetic materials for full-mouth cement-retained implant prosthesis using finite element analysis. Materials and methods: Four, 3-dimensional mandibular models were designed using Solidworks software. Six conical implants of 4.5 × 11.5 mm, with an internal hexagonal abutment, were fabricated and placed. The physical properties of the implant components, bone, and crowns were simulated to mesh the three-dimensional finite element models. The bite was recorded, and various contact points were marked, on which 50 N loads were applied. The von Mises stress distribution and resultant deformation were analyzed using the finite element method. Results: Higher stress distribution was recorded on the implants, abutments, and abutment screws when zirconia and PEEK prosthesis were used in comparison to metal-ceramic and Trinia. In consideration of deformation, zirconia and Trinia resulted in higher deformation of the implant assembly, abutment, and abutment screw when compared to metal-ceramic and PEEK prosthesis. Anterior implants showed a higher deformation and stress distribution when compared to posterior implants for all four prosthetic materials. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, metal-ceramic and Trinia showed less stress distribution, while metal-ceramic and PEEK exhibited less deformation on implant and its components. Hence in future, Trinia and PEEK along with metal-ceramic can be promising prosthetic materials of choice in full-mouth rehabilitation with implants. Clinical significance: Considering the deformation and stress distribution on the implant and its components, the selection of prosthetic material in full-mouth rehabilitation has always been a challenge. Findings of the abovementioned cross-sectional observational study could give an overall insight into materials such as metal-ceramic and Trinia as materials of choice, which can provide a basis for future clinical trials.


PDF Share
  1. Papaspyridakos P, Chen C-J, Singh M, et al. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91(3):242–248. DOI: 10.1177/0022034511431252.
  2. Robati Anaraki M, Torab A, Mounesi Rad T. Comparison of stress in implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures between canine guidance and group function occlusal patterns: a finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2019;13(2):90–97. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2019.014.
  3. Walton TR. A 10-year longitudinal study of fixed prosthodontics: clinical characteristics and outcome of single-unit metal-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12(6):519–526.
  4. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(3):104–111. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x.
  5. Baggi L, Pastore S, Di Girolamo M, et al. Implant-bone load transfer mechanisms in complete-arch prostheses supported by four implants: A three-dimensional finite element approach. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109(1):9–21. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60004-9.
  6. Bankoğlu Güngör M, Aydın C, Yılmaz H, et al. An overview of zirconia dental implants: basic properties and clinical application of three cases. J Oral Implantol 2014;40(4):485–494. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00109.
  7. Tettamanti S, Millen C, Gavric J, et al. Esthetic evaluation of implant crowns and peri-implant soft tissue in the anterior maxilla: comparison and reproducibility of three different indices: Comparison and reproducibility of three esthetic indices for implant crowns. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18(3):517–526. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12306.
  8. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, et al. Fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater Off Publ Acad Dent Mater 2004;20(5):449–456. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.002.
  9. Grech J, Antunes E. Zirconia in dental prosthetics: a literature review. J Mater Res Technol 2019;8(5):4956–4964. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.06.043.
  10. Bona A, Pecho O, Alessandretti R. Zirconia as a dental biomaterial. Materials 2015;8(8):4978–4991. DOI: 10.3390/ma8084978.
  11. Badran N, Abdel Kader S, Alabbassy F. Effect of incisal porcelain veneering thickness on the fracture resistance of CAD/CAM zirconia all-ceramic anterior crowns. Int J Dent 2019;2019:1–12. DOI: 10.1155/2019/6548519.
  12. Emera K, Altonbary R, Elbashir G, et al. Comparison between all zirconia, all PEEK, and zirconia-PEEK telescopic attachments for two implants retained mandibular complete overdentures: in vitro stress analysis study. J Dent Implants 2019;9(1):24. DOI: 10.4103/jdi.jdi_6_19.
  13. Aldafeeri HR, Ghazy MH. Marginal accuracy of machinable monolithic zirconia laminate veneers. 2019;18:67–74. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1805176774.
  14. Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, et al. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(2):209–218.
  15. Ciftçi Y, Canay S. The effect of veneering materials on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15(4):571–582.
  16. Sertgöz A. Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10(1):19–27.
  17. Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, et al. 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(6):633–640. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90442-4.
  18. Benzing UR, Gall H, Weber H. Biomechanical aspects of two different implant-prosthetic concepts for edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 Apr;10(2):188–198.
  19. Hoshaw SJ, Brunski JB, Cochran GVB. Mechanical loading of Brånemark implants affects interfacial bone modeling and remodeling. Int Oral Maxillofac Implants 9(3):345–360.
  20. Vaillancourt H, Pilliar RM, McCammond D. Finite element analysis of crestal bone loss around porous-coated dental implants. J Appl Biomater Off J Soc Biomater 1995;6(4):267–282. DOI: 10.1002/jab.770060408.
  21. Simon BR, Woo SLY, Stanley GM, et al. Evaluation of one-, two-, and three-dimensional finite element and experimental models of internal fixation plates. J Biomech 1977;10(2):79–86. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(77)90071-9.
  22. van Zyl PP, Grundling NL, Jooste CH, et al. Three-dimensional finite element model of a human mandible incorporating six osseointegrated implants for stress analysis of mandibular cantilever prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10(1):51–57.
  23. Misch CM, Ismail YH. Finite element stress analysis of tooth-to-implant fixed partial denture designs. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont 1993;2(2):83–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.1993.tb00388.x.
  24. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49(6):843–848. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X.
  25. Gracis SE, Nicholls JI, Chalupnik JD, et al. Shock-absorbing behavior of five restorative materials used on implants. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4(3):282–291.
  26. Menini M, Conserva E, Tealdo T, et al. The use of a masticatory robot to analyze the shock absorption capacity of different restorative materials for implant prosthesis. J Biol Res 2011. DOI: 10.4081/jbr.2011.4636.
  27. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(5):441–451. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01706.x.
  28. Luterbacher S, Fourmousis I, Lang NP, et al. Fractured prosthetic abutments in osseointegrated implants: a technical complication to cope With. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(2):163–170. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.110209.x.
  29. Çaglar A, Bal BT, Karakoca S, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of titanium and yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide abutments and implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(5):961–969.
  30. Hazari P, Somkuwar S, Yadav N, et al. Different techniques for management of pier abutment: reports of three cases with review of literature. Arch Med Health Sci 2016;4(1):89. DOI: 10.4103/2321-4848.183343.
  31. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, et al. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;43(2):192–203. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199822)43:2<192::AID-JBM14>3.0.CO;2-K.
  32. Tartuk BK, Ayna E, Göncü Başaran E. Comparison of the load-bearing capacities of monolithic PEEK. Zirconia and Hybrid Ceramic Molar Crowns Meandros Med Dent J 2019;20(1):45–50. DOI: 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2018.54269.
  33. Saraswathi DD, Leneena G, Madava RB, et al. Comparative evaluation of marginal vertical discrepancies of full zirconia crowns, layered zirconia crowns, and metal ceramic crowns: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2016;8:208–213.
  34. Tribst JPM, de Morais DC, Alonso AA, et al. Comparative three-dimensional finite element analysis of implant-supported fixed complete arch mandibular prostheses in two materials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17(3):255–260. DOI: 10.4103/jips. jips_11_17.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.