3-D Finite element stress analysis in screw-type, cement-type, and combined-type implant fixed partial denture designs.
10.4047/jkap.2009.47.4.365
- Author:
Sung Chun LEE
1
;
Seok Gyu KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dental Science, The Catholic University of Korea, Korea. seokgyuk@paran.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Screw-type;
Cement-type;
Combined type;
3-dimensional finite element analysis
- MeSH:
Bicuspid;
Bite Force;
Denture, Partial, Fixed;
Finite Element Analysis;
Mandible;
Molar;
Prostheses and Implants;
Prosthodontics;
Retention (Psychology)
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2009;47(4):365-375
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS: Stress analysis on implant components of the combined screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis has not investigated yet. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the load distribution characteristics of implant prostheses with the different prosthodontic retention types, such as cement-type, screw-type and combined type by using 3-dimensional finite element analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3-dimensional finite element model was created in which two SS II implants (Osstem Co. Ltd.) were placed in the areas of the first premolar and the first molar in the mandible , and three-unit fixed partial dentures with four different retention types were fabricated on the two SS II implants. Model 1 was a cement-retained implant restoration made on two cement-retained type abutments (Comocta abutment; Osstem Co. Ltd.), and Model 2 was a screw-retained implant restoration made on the screw-retained type abutments (Octa abutment; Osstem Co. Ltd.). Model 3 was a combined type implant restoration made on the cement-retained type abutment (Comocta abutment) for the first molar and the screw-retained type abutment (Octa abutment) for the first premolar. Lastly, Model 4 was a combined type implant restoration made on the screw-retained type abutment (Octa abutment) for the first molar and the cement-retained type abutment (Comocta abutment) for the first premolar. Average masticatory force was applied on the central fossa in a vertical direction, and on the buccal cusp in a vertical and oblique direction for each model. Von-Mises stress patterns on alveolar bone, implant body, abutment, abutment screw, and prosthetic screw around implant prostheses were evaluated through 3-dimensional finite element analysis. RESULTS: Model 2 showed the lowest von Mises stress. In all models, the von Mises stress distribution of cortical bone, cancellous bone and implant body showed the similar pattern. Regardless of loading conditions and type of abutment system, the stress of bone was concentrated on the cortical bone. The von-Mises stress on abutment, abutment screw, and prosthetic screw showed the lower values for the screw-retained type abutment than for the cement-retained type abutment regardless of the model type. There was little reciprocal effect of the abutment system between the molar and the premolar position. For all models, buccal cusp oblique loading caused the largest stress, followed by buccal cusp vertical loading and center vertical loading. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the FEA study, the combined type implant prosthesis did not demonstrate more stress around implant components than the cement type implant prosthesis. Under the assumption of ideal passive fit, the screw-type implant prosthesis showed the least stress around implant components.
