Implant-supported overdentures with different clinical configurations: Mechanical resistance using a numerical approach

Abstract

Statement of problemImplant-supported overdentures (IODs) are a treatment option for patients with complete edentulism. However, this treatment increases the possibilities of peri-implant complications, characterized by inflammation or partial loss of surrounding hard and soft tissues. PurposeThe purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of different bar-IOD designs under different clinical configurations by comparing the stress and strain distribution on the bone during secondary stabilization. Material and methodsA finite element model of the mandible representing a patient with complete edentulism was developed. Different designs of bar-IODs were modeled and compared. The parameters studied were the material properties (cobalt-chromium, zirconium dioxide, titanium grade 5, and titanium grade 4), diameter and bar-IOD cross-sectional shape, tilt of the posterior implants (30 degrees), presence of a distal extension cantilever in the bar-IODs (12 mm), and number of implants (4 or 6). Two different mastication loading conditions were analyzed. One- and 2-way ANOVAs and the Tukey honestly significant differences post hoc test (α=.05) were used to determine the significant von Mises stress and strain values in the bone. ResultsThe 4 materials tested in the bar-IOD did not have a significant mechanical effect on the bone (P<.05). A smaller diameter and structure of the bar-IOD led to significantly higher bone stress (P<.001). A distal extension cantilever led to an increased stress concentration (model M1 versus model M3: P<.001), which reached 50% in the event of tilting of the posterior implants (model M2 versus model M4: P<.001). Tilting of the posterior implants alone, without extension, had a nonsignificant effect (model M3 versus model M4: P=.999). Model M5 supported with 6 implants reduces the stress transferred to the bone compared with model M3 supported with 4 implants (P<.05). ConclusionsDistal extensions in bar-IODs, the tilt of the posterior implants, and the low amount of material in the cross-sectional area in the bar-IOD were the most influential parameters on the mechanical resistance of dental implants in the mandibular bone.