Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical behavior of two types of prosthesis as well as the stress distribution on the prostheses’ components and the bone. Two groups were analyzed: in the first group (M1), the prothesis was composed of two implants placed at a distance of 14 mm; in the second group (M2), the prothesis was composed of three implants installed at a distance of 9.7 mm from each other. An axial load of 100 N distributed on the cantilever throughout the region from the distal implant and a 30 N axial load on the implants in the inter-foramen region, were applied in both model 1 and model 2. In both models, the stress was concentrated in the region near the neck of the implant, resulting in a maximum value of 143 MPa in M1 and of 131MPa in M2. In M1, the stress along the bone varied from of -4.7 MPa to 13,57 MPa, whereas in M2, it varied from -10 to 12 MPa. According to the results obtained, the model corresponding to six implants presented a better distribution of bone stress around the implants.
Highlights
In fully edentulous patients who do not adapt to the use of mandibular total prostheses, the widely accepted clinical solution is a prosthesis supported by four to six implants placed in the interphalangeal region, which demonstrates according to both clinical accompaniment and in vitro analysis, high success rates [1,2,3]
InMPa, the M1 group, to models distal implant (MPa), four as implants, highest appeared around the bar where the implants were more rigid
Difference between models distal implant (MPa). This finite element study analyzed the effect of the number of implants on the distribution of stress transmitted to the implants and to the supporting bone tissue and the stress obtained in different types of rehabilitation
Summary
In fully edentulous patients who do not adapt to the use of mandibular total prostheses, the widely accepted clinical solution is a prosthesis supported by four to six implants placed in the interphalangeal region, which demonstrates according to both clinical accompaniment and in vitro analysis, high success rates [1,2,3].Factors such as mandibular curvature, cortical and trabecular bone density, length and number of implants, surface, cantilever length, and stiffness of the metal structure have great influence on theAppl. In fully edentulous patients who do not adapt to the use of mandibular total prostheses, the widely accepted clinical solution is a prosthesis supported by four to six implants placed in the interphalangeal region, which demonstrates according to both clinical accompaniment and in vitro analysis, high success rates [1,2,3] Factors such as mandibular curvature, cortical and trabecular bone density, length and number of implants, surface, cantilever length, and stiffness of the metal structure have great influence on the. Factors such as mandibular curvature, cortical and trabecular bone density, length and number of implants, surface, cantilever length, and stiffness of the metal structure have great influence on the distribution of stresses to the bone tissue and have been the subject of many studies. Failure prevention prevention requires testing in been vitro the as well as in requires testing and stress analysis in vitro as well as in vivo [4,5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
