The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Stress Analysis for Different Designs of Implant-borne and Tooth-implant Fixed Partial Dentures in Mandibular Posterior Region

Mohamed T Hamed

Keywords : Connectors, Design modalities, Fixed prosthesis, Implants stress analysis

Citation Information : Hamed MT. Stress Analysis for Different Designs of Implant-borne and Tooth-implant Fixed Partial Dentures in Mandibular Posterior Region. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (12):1375-1379.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2707

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2015

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


Aim: The utilization of fixed partial dentures (FPD) ceramic frameworks for replacing the missing posterior teeth is observed to have reported high failure rates. For this reason, 3-units FPD are designed and used extensively in the clinical practices, particularly for posterior mandibular region. The current study however, aims to carry out an evaluation of different stress patterns that are induced in a 3-units FPD within posterior part of mandible using finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and methods: Different modalities of the implant-supported FPDs such as type of connector, length and diameter of implants were taken into account. A three-dimensional (3D) model simulation of a mandibular Kennedy class II removal partial denture (RPD) was designed from a computerized tomography (CT) input with digital imaging communication on medicine (DICOM) format. In addition, occlusal load of 100 N was also used for central fossae of first premolar, first molar and second molar of the 3-units’ reconstruction for each model. The magnitude of von Mises stress including minimum stress, maximum stress and average stress were also evaluated for each loading condition. Results: The findings of the current study showed evidence that tooth-implant design with a nonrigid connector has significantly increased the average stress. Furthermore, it was observed that rigid connector has considerably minimized the stress within the tooth-implant-supported FPD. Conclusion: The study concluded that stress designs significantly influence the stress distribution around the bone. Clinical significance: This study gives some guidance and criteria for the selection of the type of fixed implant prosthesis in the posterior mandibular region.

  1. Kukunoor S, Savadi RC, Raju KV, et al. A viable treatment alternative in distal extension cases: a case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014;14(Suppl 1):177–180. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0218-6.
  2. Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ. All-ceramic fixed partial dentures, part I: in vitro studies. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002;14(3):188–191. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00518.x.
  3. Olsson KG, Fürst B, Andersson B, et al. A long-term retrospective and clinical follow-up study of in-ceram alumina FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(2):150–156. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00475-x.
  4. Scurria MS, Bader JD, Shugars DA. Meta-analysis of fixed partial denture survival: prostheses and abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(4):459–464. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70162-3.
  5. Yi SW, Carlsson GE, Ericsson I, et al. Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed implant-supported partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(11):998–1002. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00819.x.
  6. Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, et al. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13(1):82–90.
  7. Pilliar RM, Deporter DA, Watson PA, et al. Dental implant design-effect on bone remodeling. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25(4):467–483. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820250405.
  8. Tsouknidas A, Giannopoulos D, Savvakis S, et al. The influence of bone quality on the biomechanical behavior of a tooth-implant fixed partial denture: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31(6):e143–e154. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5254.
  9. 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. Clin Oral Implant Res 2008;19(1):107–117. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01363.x.
  10. Sharma A, Mehta S, Chopra A, et al. Tooth-implant connection: a review. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 2017;6(11):405–416.
  11. Modi R, Kohli S, Rajeshwari K, et al. A three-dimension finite element analysis to evaluate the stress distribution in tooth supported 5-unit intermediate abutment prosthesis with rigid and nonrigid connector. Eur J Dent 2015;9(2):255. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.156847.
  12. Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, et al. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91(3):234–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.12.017.
  13. Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, et al. FEM investigation of the stress distribution over mandibular bone due to screwed overdenture positioned on dental implants. Materials (Basel) 2018;11(9):1512. DOI: 10.3390/ma11091512.
  14. Pessoa RS, Sousa RM, Pereira LM, et al. Bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon and morse-taper connections: a randomized, controlled, split-mouth, clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(1):97–110. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12437.
  15. da Costa Valente ML, de Castro DT, Macedo AP, et al. Comparative analysis of stress in a new proposal of dental implants. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017;77:360–365. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.268.
  16. Jensen C, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, et al. Implant-supported removable partial dentures in the mandible: a 3–16 year retrospective study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61(2):98–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.002.
  17. Yang H, Park C, Shin JH, et al. Stress distribution in premolars restored with inlays or onlays: 3D finite element analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(3):184–190. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.184.
  18. Rodrigues VA, Tribst JP, de Santis LR, et al. Influence of angulation and vertical misfit in the evaluation of micro-deformations around implants. Br Dent Sci 2017;20(1):32–39. DOI: 10.14295/bds.2017.v20i1.1311.
  19. Tribst JP, Rodrigues VA, Dal Piva AO, et al. The importance of correct implants positioning and masticatory load direction on a fixed prosthesis. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(1):e81–e87. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54489.
  20. de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, de Faria Almeida DA, et al. Evaluation of the effect of an offset implant configuration in the posterior maxilla with external hexagon implant platform: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118(3):363–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.033.
  21. Gümrükçü Z, Korkmaz YT, Korkmaz FM. Biomechanical evaluation of implant-supported prosthesis with various tilting implant angles and bone types in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study. Comput Biol Med 2017;86:47–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.04.015.
  22. Minatel L, Verri FR, Kudo GA, et al. Effect of different types of prosthetic platforms on stress-distribution in dental implant-supported prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017;71:35–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.09.062.
  23. Sommers MB, Sanders RW, Falkner JG, et al. System and method for bone fixation using a nail locked to an encircling anchor. US Pat 16/153,460, 2019.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.