Retracted: Stress Distribution in Three-Implant- Retained  Mandibular Overdentures Using Finite Element Analysis

Ahmadzadeh , Asadollah; Golmohammadi , Farnoosh; Mousavi , Najmeh; Epakchi , Saeid

[Home ] [Archive]

Main Menu

Journal Information

Editorial Policies

Articles archive

For Authors

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Last site contents
:: Contact Us

Volume 27, Issue 1 (1-2015)

J Iran Dent Assoc 2015, 27(1): 6-14

Back to browse issues page

Retracted: Stress Distribution in Three-Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures Using Finite Element Analysis

Asadollah Ahmadzadeh¹

, Farnoosh Golmohammadi ^*

², Najmeh Mousavi³

, Saeid Epakchi⁴

1- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahwaz University of Medical Sciences. Ahwaz, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. Kermanshah, Iran , farnoosh.gol@gmail.com
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ghazvin University of Medical Sciences. Ghazvin, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Boshehr University of Medical Sciences. Boshehr, Iran

Abstract: (5716 Views)

Background and Aim: Demand for implant-supported overdentures has increased due to the problems of conventional dentures. Despite the high success rate of implants, implant failure remains a major challenge. Implant overload can cause cortical bone loss and im-plant failure. Using finite element analysis (FEA), this study aimed to find the best design and type of attachments causing minimum stress in the alveolar bone.

Materials and Methods: The geometrical model of the mandible was produced using computed tomography (CT) data and three ITI implants were placed in the midline and the location of the first premolar teeth. All conditions were simulated using finite element software. Three bar-ball, bar and ball attachments were considered to support the overdenture. Maximum von Mises stress was calculated in the supporting bone in differ-ent overdenture designs.

Results: The greatest amount of stress in bone was around the upper thread and the neck of the implant. The ball and the bar-ball attachments applied the most and the least amount of stress to the peri-implant bone, respectively. Maximum stress was applied to the ball attachment in the bar-ball design. The maximum amount of movement was in bar-ball attachment.

Conclusion: The bar-design decreased the stability of overdenture, as well as the stress in the peri-implant bone. Ball design increased concentration of stress in bone around the implant and increased the stability of overdenture.

Keywords: Dental implant, Mandibular overdenture, Attachment systems, Finite

Full-Text [PDF 78 kb] (885 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original | Subject: Prosthodontics

References

1. Celik G, Uludag B. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Apr;97(4):229-35.

2. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. A three-dimensional, finite-element analysis of bone around dental implants in an edentulous human mandible. Arch Oral Biol. 1993 June;38 (6):491-6.

3. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. Loading conditions of endosseous implants in an edentulous human mandible: a three dimensional, finite element study. J Oral Rehabil. 1996 Nov; 23 (11):757-63.

4. Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: Finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Imp. 1998 May-Jun;13(3):369-76.

5. Chun HJ, Park DN, Han CH, Heo SJ, Heo MS, Koak JY. Stress distributions in maxillary bone surrounding overdenture implants with different overdenture attachments. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Mar;32(3):193-205.

6. Daas M, Dubois G, Bonnet AS, Lipinski P, Rignon-Bret C. A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations. Med Eng& Physics. 2008 Mar;30(2):218-25.

7. Prakash V, D'Souza M, Adhikari R. A comparison of stress distribution and flexion among various designs of bar attachments for implant overdentures: a three dimensional finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res. 2009 Jan-Mar; 20(1):31-36.

8. Cruz M, Wassall T, Toledo EM, Barra LP, Lemonge AC. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of a cuneiform-geometry implant. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Imp. 2003 Sep-Oct; 18 (5): 675-84.

9. Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Sevimay M, Soykan E, Unsal E. The influence of occlusal loading location on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: a three-dimensional finite element study. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Feb;91(2):144-50.

10. Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Maceri F, Vairo G. Stress-based performance evaluation of osseointegrated dental implants by finite-element simulation. Simul Model Pract and Theory. 2008 Sept;16(8):971-87.

11. Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. ln Vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: Comparison of load transfer and denture stability. Int J Prosthod. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):128-34.

12. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2001 June; 85(6): 585-98.

13. Association of Osseointegration 6-9 October 2010, Glasgow 9 International Diabetes. Http"// www. Straumann. com/stargetref.pdf.

14. Okeson, Jeffrey P. Temporomandibular disorders and occlusion, 7th ed. USA: Mosby; 2013, 63.

15. Korioth TW, Hannam AG. Deformation of the human mandible during simulated tooth clenching. J Dent Res. 1994 Jan;73(1):56-66.

16. Koolstra JH, Van Eijden TM, Weijs WA, Naeije M. A three-dimensional mathematical model of the human masticatory system predicting maximum possible bite forces. J Biomech. 1988; 21(7):563-76.

17. Koolstra JH. Number crunching with the human masticatory system. J Dent Res. 2003 Sept;82(9):672-6.

18. Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Stress transfer of four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Oct;92(4):328-36.

19. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. A three-dimensional finite element study on two versus four implants in an edentulous mandible. Inter J Prosthod. 1994 May-Jun; 7(3):271-9.

20. Meijer HJ, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJ, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: Influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Jul; 68 (1):96-102.

21. Mericske-stern R, Piotti M, Sirtes G. 3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Dec;7(4):387-96.

22. Mish Carl E. Contemporary implant dentistry. [S.L]:[S.N]; 3th ed. 2008,546.

23. Hansson S, Werke M. The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: A finite element study. J Biomech. 2003 Sept; 36(9):1247-58.

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Ahmadzadeh A, Golmohammadi F, Mousavi N, Epakchi S. Retracted: Stress Distribution in Three-Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures Using Finite Element Analysis. J Iran Dent Assoc 2015; 27 (1) :6-14
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1727-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 27, Issue 1 (1-2015)

Back to browse issues page

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645