Finite element biomechanical analysis of various bone mineral densities on edentulous mandibular four-implant-supported overdentures fixed using Locator attachments

doi:10.12307/2022.276

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The four-implant-supported overdenture is a commonly used treatment for the edentulous mandibular patient, while the bone mineral density affects the biomechanical outcome, the stability of the implant-supported prostheses, and the health of surrounding tissue, thus influences the long-term therapeutic effect.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of bone mineral density on stress distribution of edentulous mandibular four-implant-supported overdentures via Locator attachments through a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
METHODS: Four edentulous mandibular male patients without systemic disease, who had worn four-implant-supported overdentures via Locator attachments, were selected to establish three-dimensional finite element models. Four edentulous mandible models (M1, M2, M3, and M4) made of four different bone types (type 1, 2, 3, and 4, corresponding to the order of cancellous bone whose modulus of elasticity is 9.5, 5.5, 1.6, 0.69 GPa) and embedded with four implants in the interforaminal region were established based on cone beam computerized tomography data. The mandibles were restored using four-implant-supported overdentures via Locator attachments. After 3 forces (F1, F2, and F3) of 120 N magnitudes from various directions applied on the right lower first molar, the von Mises stresses on the cortical and cancellous bones and the implants were determined.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) For the cortical bone or the cancellous bone, stress concentrations were found on the peri-implant area of models (M1, M2, M3, and M4), particularly on the loading side in all the models. The maximum von Mises stress increased progressively for the cortical bone and implants, but decreased progressively for the cancellous bone from type 1 (M1) to type 4 (M4) bones under three loading conditions. (2) For the implant, stress concentrations were found at the necks of implants and at the contact zones between implants and the Locator abutments, especially on the loading side. The highest maximum von Mises stress was found on M4, while the lowest maximum von Mises stress was found on M1. (3) Results indicate that compact bones (types 1 and 2) are the most suitable bones for edentulous mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Poor bone mineral density (type 4 bone) may increase the risk of biological and mechanical failures.

Key words: bone mineral density, stress distribution, edentulous mandible, implant-supported overdenture, three-dimensional finite element analysis, Locator attachments

CLC Number:

Wang Yuan, Zhang Yang. Finite element biomechanical analysis of various bone mineral densities on edentulous mandibular four-implant-supported overdentures fixed using Locator attachments[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2022, 26(22): 3492-3497.

Figures/Tables 6

References

[1] SOTO-PENALOZA D, ZARAGOZÍ-ALONSO R, PENARROCHA-DIAGO M, et al. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e474-e488.
[2] AZCARATE-VELÁZQUEZ F, CASTILLO-OYAGÜE R, OLIVEROS-LÓPEZ LG, et al. Influence of bone quality on the mechanical interaction between implant and bone: A finite element analysis. J Dent. 2019; 88:103161.
[3] DE ALMEIDA EO, ROCHA EP, FREITAS AC, et al. Finite element stress analysis of edentulous mandibles with different bone types supporting multiple-implant superstructures.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25(6):1108-1114.
[4] LEHKHOLM U, ZARB GA. Patients selection and preparation. Branemark, P-I. Tissue Integrated Prosthesis Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry, 1985:199-209.
[5] LINKOW LI, RINALDI AW, WEISS WW, et al. Factors influencing long-term implant success. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63(1):64-73.
[6] BASS SL, TRIPLETT RG. The effects of preoperative resorption and jaw anatomy on implant success. A report of 303 cases. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991;2(4):193-198.
[7] SEVIMAY M, TURHAN F, KILICARSLAN MA, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown.J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93(3): 227-234.
[8] ISIDOR F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17 Suppl 2:8-18.
[9] LEUNG KC, CHOW TW, WAT PY, et al. Peri-implant bone loss: management of a patient. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(2): 273-277.
[10] JAFFIN RA, KUMAR KA, BERMAN CL. Immediate loading of dental implants in the completely edentulous maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(5):721-730.
[11] TABATA LF, ROCHA EP, BARÃO VA, et al. Platform switching: biomechanical evaluation using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(3):482-491.
[12] SHAPURIAN T, DAMOULIS PD, REISER GM, et al. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):290-297.
[13] DRAGE NA, PALMER RM, BLAKE G, et al. A comparison of bone mineral density in the spine, hip and jaws of edentulous subjects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(4):496-500.
[14] FAVERANI LP, BARAO VA, RAMALHO-FERREIRA G, et al. The influence of bone quality on the biomechanical behavior of full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2014; 37:164-170.
[15] TADA S, STEGAROIU R, KITAMURA E, et al. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(3):357-368.
[16] HUANG HL, HSU JT, FUH LJ, et al. Bone stress and interfacial sliding analysis of implant designs on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: a non-linear finite element study. J Dent. 2008;36(6):409-417.
[17] PESSOA RS, VAZ LG, MARCANTONIO E, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of platform switching in different implant protocols: computed tomography-based three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(5):911-919.
[18] LIAO SH, TONG RF, DONG JX. Influence of anisotropy on peri-implant stress and strain in complete mandible model from CT. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2008;32(1):53-60.
[19] LIU J, PAN S, DONG J, et al. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent. 2013;41(3):241-249.
[20] SARRAFPOUR B, SWAIN M, LI Q, et al. Tooth eruption results from bone remodelling driven by bite forces sensed by soft tissue dental follicles: a finite element analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):1-10.
[21] CRUZ M, WASSALL T, TOLEDO EM, et al. Finite element stress analysis of dental prostheses supported by straight and angled implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(3):391-403.
[22] CRUZ M, WASSALL T, TOLEDO EM, et al. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of a cuneiform-geometry implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(5):675-684.
[23] DEGIDI M, PIATTELLI A. Immediate functional and non-functional loading of dental implants: a 2- to 60-month follow-up study of 646 titanium implants. J Periodontol. 2003;74(2):225-241.
[24] CHIAPASCO M. Early and immediate restoration and loading of implants in completely edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19 Suppl:76-91.
[25] YOKOYAMA S, WAKABAYASHI N, SHIOTA M, et al. Stress analysis in edentulous mandibular bone supporting implant-retained 1-piece or multiple superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(4): 578-583.
[26] BARAO VA, DELBEN JA, LIMA J, et al. Comparison of different designs of implant-retained overdentures and fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis on stress distribution in edentulous mandible--a computed tomography-based three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech. 2013;46(7):1312-1320.
[27] ESKITASCIOGLU G, USUMEZ A, SEVIMAY M, et al. 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;91(2):144-150.
[28] GRANT BT, PANCKO FX, KRAUT RA. Outcomes of placing short dental implants in the posterior mandible: a retrospective study of 124 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(4):713-717.
[29] ROBERTS WE, GOODACRE CJ. The Temporomandibular Joint: A Critical Review of Life-Support Functions, Development, Articular Surfaces, Biomechanics and Degeneration. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(9):772-779.
[30] GENG JP, TAN KB, LIU GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85(6):585-598.
[31] PI X. Oral anatomy and physiology . 7th ed. Beijing:People’s Medical Publishing House, 2004:314-318.
[32] GOTFREDSEN K, BERGLUNDH T, LINDHE J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load of different duration. A study in the dog (III).Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(6):552-558.
[33] DAAS M, DUBOIS G, BONNET AS, et al. A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30(2):218-225.