A THREE DIMENSIONAL PHOTOELASTIC STRESS ANALYSIS OF OMPLANT-SUPPORTED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURE ACCORDING TO IMPLANT NUMBER AND ATTACHMENT TYPE.
- Author:
Sang Hoon HAN
1
;
Yoon Sup TAE
;
Tae Ho JIN
;
Hye Won CHO
Author Information
1. Dept. of Prothodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH:
Dental Implants;
Denture, Overlay*
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
1997;35(3):577-608
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stress distribution in the bone around dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture according to the number of implant and the type of attachment. Two or four implants were placed in an edentulous mandibular model and three dimensional photoelastic stress analysis was carried out to measure the fringe order around the implant supporting structure and also to calculate principle stress components at cervical area of each implant. The attachments tested were rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar, Round bar, Hader bar and Dal-Ro attachment. The results were as follows; 1. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Round bar, Hader bar, and Dal-Ro attachment, compressive stress pattern was observed on the supporting structure of implant on loaded side, while tensile stress pattern in unloaded side. 2. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Dolder bar, the rigid Dolder bar shared the occlusal loads between 2 implants in a more favorable manner than was exhibited by the resilient type, while the resilient type placed a more stress on the distocervical area of the implant on the loaded side. But compressive stress pattern was observed in both the loaded and unloaded sides in either case. 3. In 2-implant supported overdenture, rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar exhibited more cross arch involvement than the Round bar, Hader bar, or Dal-Ro attachment. 4. In 4-implant supported overdenture using resilient Dolder bar and Hader bar, stress turned out to be distributed evenly among the implants between loaded and unloaded side, but ther was no reduction in the magnitude of the stress in the surrounding structure of implant contratry to 2-implant supported overdenture.. 5. The stress pattern at cervical area of implant was different with the number of implant or the type of attachment but the overload, harmful to surrounding structure of implant, was not observed.
