Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(04): 669-674
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727544
Original Article

Finite Element Analysis of Stress in Anterior Prosthetic Rehabilitation with Zirconia Implants with and without Cantilever

Karina Tiemi Sanomya Tsumanuma
1   School of Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Ricardo Armini Caldas
2   School of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Isaias Donizeti Silva
3   School of Dentistry, Santo Amaro University, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Milton Edson Miranda
1   School of Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
William Cunha Brandt
3   School of Dentistry, Santo Amaro University, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Rafael Pino Vitti
4   School of Dentistry, Herminio Ometto University Center, Araras, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate using finite element analysis (FEA), the stress distribution in prostheses (lithium disilicate crowns) on monotype zirconia implants with and without cantilever in the anterior region of the maxilla.

Materials and Methods From a virtual reconstruction of bone model of the toothed maxilla from a computed tomography, three models (groups) were created: Zr (11–21)—implants placed in the area of 11 and 21 with cantilever; Zr (12–22)—implants placed in the area of 12 and 22 without cantilever; and Zr (11–22)—implants intercalated placed in the area of 11 and 22. In all models, monotype zirconia implant (4.1 × 12.0 mm) was used in single-body configuration. Lithium disilicate crowns were designed on the implants and pontics for all groups. A 150-N load was applied to the prostheses. The materials used were considered isotropic, homogeneous, and linearly elastic. FEA was performed to evaluate the maximum (tensile) and minimum (compressive) principal stresses in the implant, crowns, and bone tissue. Data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results For all groups, the highest maximum principal stress occurred in the palatal cervical area of the implant, with the high values for the Zr (12–22) group and the low values for the Zr (11–21) group. The maximum principal stress was concentrated in the cervical palatal area of the crown, with the Zr (11–21) group presented the highest values and the Zr (12–22) group showed the lowest values. In the bone tissue all the groups presented similar values of maximum and minimal principal stress, with the palatal (maximum principal) and vestibular (minimum principal) close to the cervical of the implants the area with the highest concentration of stresses.

Conclusions The position of monotype zirconia implant did not interfere in the bone tissue stress, and the implants placed in the 11–21 present lower stress in implants and higher in the crown. The cantilever does not increase the stress in the implants, crown, and bone tissue.

Keywords

zirconia implants - cantilever - finite element analysis - rehabilitation


Publication History

Article published online:
12 August 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Vailati F, Belser UC. Replacing four missing maxillary incisors with regular- or narrow-neck implants: analysis of treatment options. Eur J Esthet Dent 2007; 2 (01) 42-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brandão de Holanda KA, Armini Caldas R, Amaral M. et al Biomechanical evaluation of anterior implants associated with titanium and zirconia abutments and monotype zirconia implants. J Prosthodont Res 2021; 65 (01) 73-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gredes T, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Gedrange T, Dominiak M, Kunert-Keil C. Comparison of surface modified zirconia implants with commercially available zirconium and titanium implants: a histological study in pigs. Implant Dent 2014; 23 (04) 502-507
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cionca N, Hashim D, Mombelli A. Zirconia dental implants: where are we now, and where are we heading?. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73 (01) 241-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Porto OCL, Silva BSF, Silva JA. et al CBCT assessment of bone thickness in maxillary and mandibular teeth: an anatomic study. J Appl Oral Sci 2020; 28: e20190148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wakimoto M, Matsumura T, Ueno T, Mizukawa N, Yanagi Y, Iida S. Bone quality and quantity of the anterior maxillary trabecular bone in dental implant sites. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (11) 1314-1319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Corrêa CB, Margonar R, Noritomi PY, Vaz LG. Mechanical behavior of dental implants in different positions in the rehabilitation of the anterior maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111 (04) 301-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Torcato LB, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, Falcón-Antenucci RM, Batista VE, Lopes LF. Effect of the parafunctional occlusal loading and crown height on stress distribution. Braz Dent J 2014; 25 (06) 554-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pham NQ, Gonda T, Takahashi T, Maeda Y. The influence of bone loss on peri-implant bending strain under overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (04) 900-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Borie E, Leal E, Orsi IA, Salamanca C, Dias FJ, Weber B. Influence of transmucosal height in abutments of single and multiple implant-supported prostheses: a non-linear three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2018; 21 (01) 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bramanti E, Cervino G, Lauritano F. et al FEM and von mises analysis on prosthetic crowns structural elements: evaluation of different applied materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2017; 2017: 1029574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Arzukanyan AV, Spagnuolo G, Campagna P, Cicciù M. Application of bioengineering devices for stress evaluation in dentistry: the last 10 years FEM parametric analysis of outcomes and current trends. Minerva Stomatol 2020; 69 (01) 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, Risitano G. FEM Analysis of dental implant-abutment interface overdenture components and parametric evaluation of Equator® and Locator® prosthodontics attachments. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (04) 592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cicciù M, Risitano G, Maiorana C, Franceschini G. Parametric analysis of the strength in the “Toronto” osseous-prosthesis system. Minerva Stomatol 2009; 58 (1-2) 9-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Freitas da Silva EV, Dos Santos DM, Sonego MV, de Luna Gomes JM, Pellizzer EP, Goiato MC. Does the presence of a cantilever influence the survival and success of partial implant-supported dental prostheses? systematic review and meta- analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (04) 815-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moris ICM, Faria ACL, de MdaG Mattos, Ribeiro RF, Rodrigues RC. Mechanical analysis of conventional and small diameter conical implant abutments. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4 (03) 158-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pesqueira AA, Goiato MC, Filho HG. et al Use of stress analysis methods to evaluate the biomechanics of oral rehabilitation with implants. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40 (02) 217-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bastos JMC, Bordin D, Vasconcellos AA. et al Influence of cantilever position and implant connection in a zirconia custom implant-supported fixed partial prosthesis: in silico analysis. Rev Odontol UNESP 2018; 47: 223-229
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Irandoust S, Müftü S. The interplay between bone healing and remodeling around dental implants. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 4335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chavarri-Prado D, Brizuela-Velasco A, Álvarez-Arenal Á. et al The bone buttress theory: the effect of the mechanical loading of bone on the osseointegration of dental implants. Biology (Basel) 2020; 10 (01) 12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cicciù M, Bramanti E, Cecchetti F, Scappaticci L, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM and Von Mises analyses of different dental implant shapes for masticatory loading distribution. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014; 7 (01) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Verri FR, Santiago Jr JF, Almeida DA. et al Biomechanical three-dimensional finite element analysis of single implant-supported prostheses in the anterior maxilla, with different surgical techniques and implant types. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (04) e191-e198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hsu ML, Chen FC, Kao HC, Cheng CK. Influence of off-axis loading of an anterior maxillary implant: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 (02) 301-309
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Dos Santos Marsico V, Lehmann RB, de Assis Claro CA. et al Three-dimensional finite element analysis of occlusal splint and implant connection on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and peri-implantal bone. Mater Sci Eng C 2017; 80: 141-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Teixeira MF, Ramalho SA, de Mattias Sartori IA, Lehmann RB. Finite element analysis of 2 immediate loading systems in edentulous mandible: rigid and semirigid splinting of implants. Implant Dent 2010; 19 (01) 39-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Misch CE, Bidez MW, Sharawy M. A bioengineered implant for a predetermined bone cellular response to loading forces. A literature review and case report. J Periodontol 2001; 72 (09) 1276-1286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cehreli M, Duyck J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Implant design and interface force transfer. A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15 (02) 249-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, Risitano G. FEM Investigation of the stress distribution over mandibular bone due to screwed overdenture positioned on dental implants. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11 (09) 1512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Çaglar A, Bal BT, Karakoca S, Aydın C, Yılmaz H, Sarısoy S. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of titanium and yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide abutments and implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26 (05) 961-969
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Lauritano F, Runci M, Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Bramanti E, Cicciù M. Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the Von Mises stress test. Minerva Stomatol 2016; 65 (06) 353-367
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ereifej N, Rodrigues FP, Silikas N, Watts DC. Experimental and FE shear-bonding strength at core/veneer interfaces in bilayered ceramics. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (06) 590-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar