Biomechanical 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Obturator Protheses Retained with Zygomatic and Dental Implants in Maxillary Defects

被引:0
作者
Akay, Canan [1 ]
Yalug, Suat [2 ]
机构
[1] Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Ankara, Turkey
[2] Gazi Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Ankara, Turkey
来源
MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR | 2015年 / 21卷
关键词
Finite Element Analysis; Palatal Obturators; Prostheses and Implants; PARTIALLY EDENTULOUS PATIENTS; PROSTHETIC REHABILITATION; BASIC PRINCIPLES; RECONSTRUCTION; OVERDENTURES; DESIGN;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in the bone around zygomatic and dental implants for 3 different implant-retained obturator prostheses designs in a Aramany class IV maxillary defect using 3-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Material\Methods: A 3-dimensional finite element model of an Aramany class IV defect was created. Three different implant-retained obturator prostheses were modeled: model 1 with 1 zygomatic implant and 1 dental implant, model 2 with 1 zygomatic implant and 2 dental implants, and model 3 with 2 zygomatic implants. Locator attachments were used as a superstructure. A 150-N load was applied 3 different ways. Qualitative analysis was based on the scale of maximum principal stress; values obtained through quantitative analysis are expressed in MPa. Results: In all loading conditions, model 3 (when compared models 1 and 2) showed the lowest maximum principal stress value. Model 3 is the most appropirate reconstruction in Aramany class IV maxillary defects. Two zygomatic implants can reduce the stresses in model 3. The distribution of stresses on prostheses were more rational with the help of zygoma implants, which can distribute the stresses on each part of the maxilla. Conclusions: Aramany class IV obturator prosthesis placement of 2 zygomatic implants in each side of the maxilla is more advantageous than placement of dental implants. In the non-defective side, increasing the number of dental implants is not as suitable as zygomatic implants.
引用
收藏
页码:604 / 611
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   The use of zygomatic implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla [J].
Aparicio, Carlos ;
Ouazzani, Wafaa ;
Hatano, Naoki .
PERIODONTOLOGY 2000, 2008, 47 :162-171
[2]   BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBTURATOR DESIGN FOR PARTIALLY EDENTULOUS PATIENTS .2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES [J].
ARAMANY, MA .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1978, 40 (06) :656-662
[3]   BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBTURATOR DESIGN FOR PARTIALLY EDENTULOUS PATIENTS .1. CLASSIFICATION [J].
ARAMANY, MA .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1978, 40 (05) :554-557
[4]   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].
Barao, V. A. R. ;
Delben, J. A. ;
Lima, J. ;
Cabral, T. ;
Assuncao, W. G. .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2013, 46 (07) :1312-1320
[5]  
Çehreli MC, 2010, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V25, P163
[6]  
Chao Y L, 1995, Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent, V3, P255
[7]   Clinical outcome of dental implants placed in fibula-free flaps used for the reconstruction of maxillo-mandibular defects following ablation for tumors or osteoradionecrosis [J].
Chiapasco, M ;
Biglioli, F ;
Autelitano, L ;
Romeo, E ;
Brusati, R .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2006, 17 (02) :220-228
[8]   Stress distributions in maxillary bone surrounding overdenture implants with different overdenture attachments [J].
Chun, HJ ;
Park, DN ;
Han, CH ;
Heo, SJ ;
Heo, MS ;
Koak, JY .
JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2005, 32 (03) :193-205
[9]   Effect of alveolar bone support on zygomatic implants: a finite element analysis study [J].
Freedman, M. ;
Ring, M. ;
Stassen, L. F. A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2013, 42 (05) :671-676
[10]   Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature [J].
Geng, JP ;
Tan, KBC ;
Liu, GR .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2001, 85 (06) :585-598