Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla

Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista, Fellippo Ramos Verri, Daniel Augusto de Faria Almeida, Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos and Eduardo Piza Pellizzer

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2017, vol. 20, issue 6, 663-670

Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of pontic and cantilever designs (mesial and distal) on 3-unit implant-retained prosthesis at maxillary posterior region verifying stress and strain distributions on bone tissue (cortical and trabecular bones) and stress distribution in abutments, implants and fixation screws, under axial and oblique loadings, by 3D finite element analysis. Each model was composed of a bone block presenting right first premolar to the first molar, with three or two external hexagon implants (4.0 × 10 mm), supporting a 3-unit splinted dental fixed dental prosthesis with the variations: M1 – three implants supporting splinted crowns; M2 – two implants supporting prosthesis with central pontic; M3 – two implants supporting prosthesis with mesial cantilever; M4 – two implants supporting prosthesis with distal cantilever. The applied forces were 400 N axial and 200 N oblique. The von Mises criteria was used to evaluate abutments, implants and fixation screws and maximum principal stress and microstrain criteria were used to evaluate the bone tissue. The decrease of the number of implants caused an unfavorable biomechanical behavior for all structures (M2, M3, M4). For two implant-supported prostheses, the use of the central pontic (M2) showed stress and strain distributions more favorable in the analyzed structures. The use of cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior (M3 and M4), mainly for distal cantilever (M4). The use of three implants presented lower values of stress and strain on the analyzed structures. Among two implant-supported prostheses, prostheses with cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior in the analyzed structures, especially for distal cantilever.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2017.1287905 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:20:y:2017:i:6:p:663-670

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/gcmb20

DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2017.1287905

Access Statistics for this article

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering is currently edited by Director of Biomaterials John Middleton

More articles in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().