Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(03): 333-340
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184152
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of cantilever length on stress distribution around implants in mandibular overdentures supported by two and three implants

Behnaz Ebadian
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Torabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Ramin Mosharraf
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Material Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Niloufar Khodaeian
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Material Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: There is no definitive study comparing stress distribution around two versus three implants in implant-retained overdentures with different cantilever length. The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate stress pattern around the implants of the 2 or 3 implant-supported mandibular overdenture with different cantilevered length. Materials and Methods: The models used in this study were 2 and 3 implant-supported overdenture with bar and clip attachment system on an edentulous mandibular arch. Each model was modified according to cantilever length (0 mm, 7 mm, and 13 mm); thus, 6 models were obtained. The vertical load of 15 and 30 pounds were applied unilaterally to the first molar and 15 pounds to the first premolar, and the stress in bone was analyzed. Results: With increasing cantilever length, no similar stress pattern changes were observed in different areas, but in most instances, an increase in cantilever length did not increase the stress around the implant adjacent to cantilever. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that increasing of cantilever length in mandibular overdentures retained by 2–3 implants did not cause distinct increasing in stress, especially around the implant adjacent to cantilever, it may be helpful to use cantilever in cases of mandibular overdenture supported by splinted implants with insufficient retention and stability. Based on the findings of this study, optimal cantilever length in mandibular overdenture cannot be determined.

Key words:

Cantilever - finite element analysis - overdenture - stress
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Hussein MO. Stress-strain distribution at bone-implant interface of two splinted overdenture systems using 3D finite element analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2013; 5: 333-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ebadian B, Farzin M, Talebi S, Khodaeian N. Evaluation of stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular overdenture with different vertical restorative spaces: A finite element analysis. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: 741-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Celik G, Uludag B. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 229-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, Mo Z, Fan Y, Feng H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent 2013; 41: 241-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ochiai KT, Williams BH, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA. Photoelastic analysis of the effect of palatal support on various implant-supported overdenture designs. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 421-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, Pouya MA, Mahmood F. The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: A finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 311-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McCartney JW. Cantilever rests: An alternative to the unsupported distal cantilever of osseointegrated implant-supported prostheses for the edentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 817-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11 (Suppl. 01) 108-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Stress transfer of four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever designs. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 328-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Semper W, Heberer S, Nelson K. Retrospective analysis of bar-retained dentures with cantilever extension: Marginal bone level changes around dental implants over time. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 385-93
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Elsyad MA, Al-Mahdy YF, Salloum MG, Elsaih EA. The effect of cantilevered bar length on strain around two implants supporting a mandibular overdenture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: e143-50
    Google Scholar
  • 13 White SN, Caputo AA, Anderkvist T. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 493-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 59-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Greco GD, Jansen WC, Landre JuniorJ, Seraidarian PI. Stress analysis on the free-end distal extension of an implant-supported mandibular complete denture. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23: 182-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Sevimay M, Soykan E, Unsal E. 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: 144-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bidez MW, McLoughlin SW, Chen Y, English CE. Finite element analysis of two-abutment hader bar designs. Implant Dent 1993; 2: 107-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Watson RM, Davis DM, Forman GH, Coward T. Considerations in design and fabrication of maxillary implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4: 232-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McAlarney ME, Stavropoulos DN. Theoretical cantilever lengths versus clinical variables in fifty-five clinical cases. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 332-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 327-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ebadian B, Mosharraf R, Khodaeian N. Finite element analysis of the influence of implant inclination on stress distribution in mandibular overdentures. J Oral Implantol 2015; 41: 252-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Manda M, Galanis C, Georgiopoulos V, Provatidis C, Koidis P. Effect of severely reduced bone support on the stress field developed within the connectors of three types of cross-arch fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 101: 54-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Zampelis A, Rangert B, Heijl L. Tilting of splinted implants for improved prosthodontic support: A two-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97 (06) Suppl S35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Greco GD, Jansen WC, Landre JuniorJ, Seraidarian PI. Biomechanical analysis of the stresses generated by different disocclusion patterns in an implant-supported mandibular complete denture. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 515-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Maeda Y, Wood WW. Finite element method simulation of bone resorption beneath a complete denture. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 1370-3
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Haraldson T, Jemt T, Stålblad PA, Lekholm U. Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Scand J Dent Res 1988; 96: 235-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mericske-Stern R. Force distribution on implants supporting overdentures: The effect of distal bar extensions. A 3-D in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 142-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kenney R, Richards MW. Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 559-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Batenburg RH, Raghoebar GM, Van Oort RP, Heijdenrijk K, Boering G. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosteal implants. A prospective, comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 27: 435-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. A three-dimensional finite element study on two versus four implants in an edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 271-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Guven S, Beydemir K, Dundar S, Eratilla V. Evaluation of stress distributions in peri-implant and periodontal bone tissues in 3- and 5-unit tooth and implant-supported fixed zirconia restorations by finite elements analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 329-39
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ben-Ur Z, Gorfil C, Shifman A. Anterior implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 1996; 27: 603-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Federick DR, Caputo AA. Effects of overdenture retention designs and implant orientations on load transfer characteristics. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 624-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Moreira W, Hermann C, Pereira JT, Balbinoti JA, Tiossi R. A three-dimensional finite element study on the stress distribution pattern of two prosthetic abutments for external hexagon implants. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 484-91
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Eraslan O, Inan O, Secilmis A. The effect of framework design on stress distribution in implant-supported FPDs: A 3-D FEM study. Eur J Dent 2010; 4: 374-82
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar