Elsevier

Journal of Biomechanics

Volume 48, Issue 1, 2 January 2015, Pages 130-137
Journal of Biomechanics

Effect of attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular overdentures on stress distribution: A computed tomography-based 3D finite element analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.022Get rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this study was to calculate stresses in bone tissue surrounding uncoupled and splinted implants that are induced by a bite force applied to the mandible and to determine whether the number of mandibular overdenture supporting implants in mandibular bone influence the stress distribution. A human adult edentulous mandible retrieved from a formalin fixed cadaver was used to define the geometry of finite element (FE) model and the FE model was verified with experimental measurements. Following the FE model validation, three different biting situations were simulated for the 2-, 3- and 4-implant retentive anchor as well as bar attachment overdentures under vertical loading of 100 N. As a result of the analyses, it was concluded that an increment in implant number and the splinted attachment type tended to cause lower stresses and the use of two single attachments seems to be a safe and sufficient solution for the treatment of mandibular edentulism with overdentures.

Introduction

With the rise of the number of aged people, it is estimated that the ratio of individuals over 65 years of age will reach up to 50% of the whole population in the coming decades and the number of edentulous patients even in countries with a high standard of dental health care will be significant in near future. Especially in edentulous cases, implant overdentures (IODs) help obtain better retention, thus a more comfortable function (Jemt and Staldblad, 1986).

The finite element (FE) methods are widely used in implant dentistry to predict the effects of clinical factors on implant success (DeTolla et al., 2000, Geng et al., 2001, Cruz et al., 2009). Validation of biomechanical stress and strain measurements by using strain gauges is important to have reliable results (Baiamonte et al., 1996). Nonetheless, strain gauge measurements are limited to the area where the gauge is bonded, whereas the FE methods can be used to calculate stress and strain in any location of the model (Baiamonte et al., 1996).

In literature, comparison of stress distribution between complete dentures and IODs, effects of mucosa thicknesses and resiliency on stress distribution of IODs (Barão et al., 2008, Assunção et al., 2009), influence of the retention mechanism on biomechanical behavior of IOD with two implants (Daas et al., 2008), comparison of stress distribution of IOD with ball, O-ring and magnetic attachments (John et al., 2012), stress analyses of IODs with four different bar heights (Rismanchian et al., 2012), effect of different implant positions on pre-implant bone stress of IODs with two-implants (Hong et al., 2012) and effect of different designs of IODs and fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis on stress distribution in edentulous mandible (Barão et al., 2013) were investigated by using the FE methods. The influence of different attachment types (namely, bar and ball attachments) on stress distribution was also investigated in several studies (Assunção et al., 2008, Barão et al., 2009, Vafaei et al., 2011) and no significant difference between these attachments was reported (Thayer and Caputo, 1980, Skalak, 1983, Menicucci et al., 1998a, Menicucci et al., 1998b, Duyck et al., 1999, Vafaei et al., 2011). While there are studies having evaluated satisfaction and reporting higher scores for bar attachments (Cune et al., 2005, Timmerman et al., 2004), other studies contend equal (Gotfredsen and Holm, 2000, MacEntee et al., 2005) or less satisfaction of patients (Naert et al., 2004) with bar attachments. To date, there is no consensus on the influence of implant number on stress distribution (Meijer et al., 1996; Klemetti, 2008; Liu et al., 2013). Usually, two implants are considered sufficient to support an IOD (Klemetti, 2008) and there is no concrete evidence that such IODs have a better success and satisfaction rate.

A few validated comprehensive comparative FE studies exist in literature that consider the influence of different attachment types, implant numbers and loading conditions on biomechanical behavior of IODs. The aim of this study is to calculate stresses occurring during occlusal loadings of mandibular IODs with two different attachment types and varying numbers of supporting implants and to give clinicians, from force distribution point of view, a comparative insight on the influence of implant number as well as IOD attachment type.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

A human adult edentulous mandible retrieved from a formalin fixed cadaver, that is judged by visual inspection, is used to define the geometry of the FE model. Following, a 3D advanced computer-aided design (CAD) model is created by using a commercially available CAD software (CATIA, Dassault Systemes, Vélizy-Villacoublay Cedex, France) from dental volumetric cone beam tomography scan data (Newtom, Elmsford, NY, USA) of the mandible. Overdentures and the supporting soft tissue are included in

FE model validations

To be able to compare the numerical results with the strain gauge measurements reported in the study (Arat Bilhan et al., 2013), the same gauge locations are chosen to be evaluated (Fig. 3) as follows: R1V (right first premolar vestibular), R2V (right second incisor vestibular), SV (symphysis midline vestibular), L1V (left second incisor vestibular), L2V (left first premolar vestibular), R1L (right first premolar lingual), R2L (right second incisor lingual), SL (symphysis midline lingual), L1L

Discussion

Since the knowledge about functional loads on implants is essential to achieve long-term implant success, correct qualification and quantification of forces on implants are crucial to understand their biomechanical characterization. Precise measurement and evaluation of these forces is impossible with today’s technology, because the contribution of several biomechanical factors, such as bone density, number of supporting implants, angulations of implants in bone, direction and amplitude of

Conclusions

Within the limitations of an FEA study, it is concluded that the increase in number of implants and use of a splinted attachment can be preferred in order to reduce forces emerging around the implants. The slightly lower stress values for the bar attachment could be particularly important in cases with reduced implant size and/or low bone quality. The use of 2 single attachments in cases with good bone quality and ideal sized implants seems to be a safe and sufficient solution for the treatment

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have a conflict of interest with respect to the work reported here.

References (45)

  • R. Skalak

    Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses

    J. Prosthet. Dent.

    (1983)
  • H.H. Thayer et al.

    Photoelastic stress analysis of overdenture attachments

    J. Prosthet. Dent.

    (1980)
  • S. Arat Bilhan et al.

    The influence of the attachment type and implant number supporting mandibular overdentures on stress distribution: an in vitro study—Part I

    Implant Dent.

    (2013)
  • W.G. Assunção et al.

    Comparison between complete denture and implant-retained overdenture: effect of different mucosa thickness and resiliency on stress distribution

    Gerodontology

    (2009)
  • W.G. Assunção et al.

    Comparison of stress distribution between complete denture and implant-retained overdenture-2D FEA

    J. Oral Rehabil.

    (2008)
  • T. Baiamonte et al.

    The experimental verification of the efficacy of finite element modeling to dental implant systems

    J. Oral Implantol.

    (1996)
  • V.A. Barão et al.

    Finite element analysis to compare complete denture and implant-retained overdentures with different attachment systems

    J. Craniofac. Surg.

    (2009)
  • L. Barbier et al.

    Finite element analysis of non-axial versus axial loading of oral implants in the mandible of the dog

    J. Oral Rehabil.

    (1998)
  • M.C. Cehreli et al.

    Force transmission of one- and two-piece morse-taper oral implants: a nonlinear finite element analysis

    Clin. Oral. Implants Res.

    (2004)
  • M.C. Cehreli et al.

    A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures

    Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants

    (2010)
  • D.L. Cochran

    The scientific basis for and clinical experiences with Straumann implants including the ITI Dental Implant System: a consensus report

    Clin. Oral. Implants Res.

    (2000)
  • M. Cruz et al.

    Finite element stress analysis of dental prostheses supported by straight and angled implants

    Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants

    (2009)
  • Cited by (44)

    • Peri-implant stress distribution assessment of various attachment systems for implant supported overdenture prosthesis by finite element analysis – A systematic review

      2022, Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Among the excluded studies five studies used either tooth as an abutment or any other type of prosthesis to check the stress pattern and another study evaluated stress in edentulous ridge but not in peri-implant region. Remaining two studies employed attachments of different elastic modulus; no difference was present in between attachment types.34-50 Excluded studies have been mentioned in (Table 1).

    • Real-time in vitro measurement of denture-mucosa pressure distribution in a typical edentulous patient with and without implants: Development of a methodology

      2021, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      The results produced from Group 2 further indicated that the implant received a significant amount of force and thereby transferred this directly to the bone and not onto the mucosa. While the use of fewer implants offers a cost-effective (Bilhan et al., 2015) and beneficial alternative (Liu et al., 2013) for patients requiring overdenture treatment, it is possible that with such an increase in pressure concentrated around the single implant, it may result in midline fracture of prostheses (Gibreel et al., 2020) or excessive loading around the implant which could impact on the marginal bone level (Liu et al., 2013). Unlike with the single implant, by implementing the use of two implants (Group 3), the posterior region was better supported and anterior region was found to receive minimal pressure, with only the posterior region responding to the applied stresses (Ahmad et al., 2015).

    • Effect of preparation design on the fracture behavior of ceramic occlusal veneers in maxillary premolars

      2020, Journal of Dentistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      All models consisted of tetrahedral elements. The accuracies and efficiencies of the five models were confirmed by convergence tests [25,26]. All materials were assumed to be homogeneous, linear, elastic, and isotropic.

    • Biomechanical behavior of 2-implant– and single-implant–retained mandibular overdentures with conventional or mini implants

      2018, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      This study has the limitations of FEA analysis reported in previous studies.28,33,40 An ideal clinical condition with vertically oriented implants and a physiological posterior axial load in a balanced occlusion was simulated; therefore, the present results of stresses on implants and peri-implant bone do not exceed their resistance values of compressive and tensile strength,25 mainly because the load was applied distant to the implant site.31 Other factors that may change the stress pattern, including anterior load, overloading, nonaxial loads, and tilted implants, should be evaluated in further studies.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text