LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 25 , Issue 6
November/December 2010

Pages 1108–1114


Finite Element Stress Analysis of Edentulous Mandibles with Different Bone Types Supporting Multiple-Implant Superstructures

Erika Oliveira de Almeida, DDS, MS/Eduardo Passos Rocha, DDS, MS, PhD/Amílcar Chagas Freitas Jr, DDS, MS/Manoel Martin Jr, MS, PhD


PMID: 21197486

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different types of bone on the stress distribution in the mandibular bone supporting a prefabricated bar-type implant prosthesis using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Materials and Methods: Four finite element models (M) of a completely edentulous mandibular arch were built. The bone types varied from type 1 to type 4 (M1, M2, M3, M4). The arch was restored using a prefabricated bar system supported by four interforaminal implants for the protocol prosthesis. Computer software was used to determine the stress fields. Three unilateral posterior loads (L) of 150 N were exerted on the prosthesis: L1, perpendicular to the prefabricated bar; L2, oblique (30 degrees) in the buccolingual direction; and L3, oblique (30 degrees) in the linguobuccal direction. The maximum principal stress (Omax) and the maximum principal strain (Emax) were obtained for cortical and trabecular bone. Results: Types 3 and 4 bone showed the highest smax (MPa) in the cortical bone (19.9 and 18.2 for L1, 34.6 and 31.3 for L2, and 3.88 and 24.4 for L3, respectively). The maximum principal strain (Emax) was observed in type 4 cortical bone for all loads (1.80 for L1, 2.4 for L2, and 2.36 for L3). Conclusions: The cortical bone in M3 and M4 showed the highest stress concentration in the axial and buccolingual loading conditions. Bone types 1 and 2 showed the lowest stress concentrations. For the linguobuccal loading condition, the cortical bone in M4 showed the highest stress concentration, followed by bone types 3, 2, and 1. Cortical bone in M4 showed the highest strain for all loading conditions. The bone type might not be the only decisive factor to influence the stress distribution the bone supporting an implant prosthesis anchored by a prefabricated bar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:1108–1114


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help