首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla
Authors:Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista  Fellippo Ramos Verri  Daniel Augusto de Faria Almeida  Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior  Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos  Eduardo Piza Pellizzer
Affiliation:1. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ara?atuba Dental School, UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista, Ara?atuba, Brazilvictor_edsb@hotmail.com;3. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ara?atuba Dental School, UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista, Ara?atuba, Brazil;4. School of Dentistry, Federal University of Alfenas – UNIFAL-MG, Alfenas, Brazil;5. Department of Health Sciences, University of Sacred Heart – USC, Bauru, Brazil;6. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ara?atuba Dental School, UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista, Ara?atuba, Brazil
Abstract:The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of pontic and cantilever designs (mesial and distal) on 3-unit implant-retained prosthesis at maxillary posterior region verifying stress and strain distributions on bone tissue (cortical and trabecular bones) and stress distribution in abutments, implants and fixation screws, under axial and oblique loadings, by 3D finite element analysis. Each model was composed of a bone block presenting right first premolar to the first molar, with three or two external hexagon implants (4.0 × 10 mm), supporting a 3-unit splinted dental fixed dental prosthesis with the variations: M1 – three implants supporting splinted crowns; M2 – two implants supporting prosthesis with central pontic; M3 – two implants supporting prosthesis with mesial cantilever; M4 – two implants supporting prosthesis with distal cantilever. The applied forces were 400 N axial and 200 N oblique. The von Mises criteria was used to evaluate abutments, implants and fixation screws and maximum principal stress and microstrain criteria were used to evaluate the bone tissue. The decrease of the number of implants caused an unfavorable biomechanical behavior for all structures (M2, M3, M4). For two implant-supported prostheses, the use of the central pontic (M2) showed stress and strain distributions more favorable in the analyzed structures. The use of cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior (M3 and M4), mainly for distal cantilever (M4). The use of three implants presented lower values of stress and strain on the analyzed structures. Among two implant-supported prostheses, prostheses with cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior in the analyzed structures, especially for distal cantilever.
Keywords:Finite element analysis  dental implant  biomechanical phenomena
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号