Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr 1:2018:8241313.
doi: 10.1155/2018/8241313. eCollection 2018.

Mandibular Flexure and Peri-Implant Bone Stress Distribution on an Implant-Supported Fixed Full-Arch Mandibular Prosthesis: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Affiliations

Mandibular Flexure and Peri-Implant Bone Stress Distribution on an Implant-Supported Fixed Full-Arch Mandibular Prosthesis: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Elena Martin-Fernandez et al. Biomed Res Int. .

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of three mandibular full-arch superstructures on the peri-implant bone stress distribution during mandibular flexure caused by mid-opening (27 mm) and protrusion mandibular movements.

Materials and methods: Three-dimensional finite element models were created simulating six osseointegrated implants in the jawbone. One model simulated a 1-piece framework and the other simulated 2-piece and 3-piece frameworks. Muscle forces with definite direction and magnitude were exerted over areas of attachment to simulate multiple force vectors of masticatory muscles during mandibular protrusion and opening.

Results: During the movement of 27.5 mm jaw opening, the 1-piece and 3-piece superstructures showed the lowest values of bone stress around the mesial implants, gradually increasing towards the distal position. During the protrusion movement, bone stress increased compared to opening for any implant situation and for a divided or undivided framework. The 3-piece framework showed the highest values of peri-implant bone stress, regardless of the implant situation.

Conclusions: The undivided framework provides the best biomechanical environment during mandibular protrusion and opening. Protrusion movement increases the peri-implant bone stress. The most mesial implants have the lowest biomechanical risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution and location of stress in peri-implant bone in 1-piece framework during 27 mm opening and protrusion (B: buccal; M: mesial surfaces). 1-piece framework images: (a) right side: between first and second molar positions during 27 mm opening; (b) right side: between first and second molar positions during protrusion; (c) left side: between first and second molar positions during 27 mm opening; (d) left side: between first and second molar positions during protrusion; (e) right side: first premolar position during 27 mm opening; (f) right side: first premolar position during protrusion; (g) left side: first premolar position during 27 mm opening; (h) left side: first premolar position during protrusion; (i) right side: canine position during 27 mm opening; (j) right side: canine position during protrusion; (k) left side: canine position during 27 mm opening; (l) left side: canine position during protrusion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution and location of stress on peri-implant bone in 2-piece framework during 27 mm opening and protrusion (B: buccal surface; M: mesial surface). 2-piece framework images: (a) right side: between first and second molar positions during 27 mm opening; (b) right side: between first and second molar positions during protrusion; (c) left side: between first and second molar positions during 27 mm opening; (d) left side: between first and second molar positions during protrusion; (e) right side: first premolar position during 27 mm opening; (f) right side: first premolar position during protrusion; (g) left side: first premolar position during 27 mm opening; (h) left side: first premolar position during protrusion; (i) right side: canine position during 27 mm opening; (j) right side: canine position during protrusion; (k) left side: canine position during 27 mm opening; (l) left side: canine position during protrusion.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution and location of stress on peri-implant bone in 3-piece framework during 27 mm opening and protrusion (B: buccal; M: mesial surfaces). 3-piece framework images: (a) right side: between first and second molar positions during 27 mm opening; (b) right side: between first and second molar positions during protrusion; (c) left side: between first and second molar positions during 27 mm opening; (d) left side: between first and second molar positions during protrusion; (e) right side: first premolar position during 27 mm opening; (f) right side: first premolar position during protrusion; (g) left side: first premolar position during 27 mm opening; (h) left side: first premolar position during protrusion; (i) right side: canine position during 27 mm opening; (j) right side: canine position during protrusion; (k) left side: canine position during 27 mm opening; (l) left side: canine position during protrusion.

References

    1. Hylander W. L. Stress and strain in the mandibular symphysis of primates: a test of competing hypotheses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1984;64(1):1–46. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330640102. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Eijden T. M. G. J. Biomechanics of the mandible. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine. 2000;11(1):123–136. doi: 10.1177/10454411000110010101. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Frost H. M. Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: a proposal. Anatomical Record. 1987;219(1):1–9. doi: 10.1002/ar.1092190104. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Frost H. M. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's law for clinicians. The Angle Orthodontist. 2004;74(1):3–15. - PubMed
    1. Hobkirk J. A., Havthoulas T. K. The influence of mandibular deformation, implant numbers, and loading position on detected forces in abutments supporting fixed implant superstructures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1998;80(2):169–174. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70106-4. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources