Comparison of Subperiosteal Implant Designs Applied to Atrophic and Edentulous Mandible Under Traumatic Forces: 3D Finite Element Analysis
- PMID: 40376767
- DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-25-00073
Comparison of Subperiosteal Implant Designs Applied to Atrophic and Edentulous Mandible Under Traumatic Forces: 3D Finite Element Analysis
Abstract
This study evaluated the stress distributions of subperiosteal implants (SPI) made of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in 1-piece and 2-piece designs in edentulous and severely atrophic mandibles subjected to trauma forces. This study applied 4 treatment methods to a severely atrophic edentulous mandibular model. Subperiosteal implant designs made of PEEK consisting of 1 piece in model 1 and two in model 2 were used. Subperiosteal implant designs made of titanium composed of 1 piece in model 3 and two in model 4 were used. Each of the subperiosteal implants was fixed on the mandibular model with 14 osteosynthesis screws placed in the tension lines of the mandible. A traumatic force of 2000 N was applied to the mandibular prosthesis in the anteroposterior direction. Maximum principal stress (Pmax), minimum principal stress (Pmin), and Von Mises stress (VMs) values were measured in MPa. In this study, model 3 showed the highest Pmax value in the symphysis region (45.888 MPa), whereas the values in the other models were similar. The mandibular condyle had the highest Pmax in model 2 (941.338 MPa) and the lowest in model 3 (905.756 MPa). All models compared the Pmin values measured in the symphysis, alveolar crest, and condyle region. The VM stress values on the abutments and abutment screws were lower and more stable in PEEK SPI models than titanium SPI models. However, VMs values on titanium SPI metal frameworks were lower than PEEK SPI models. In this finite element analysis, 1-piece PEEK SPI were the most advantageous design regarding mandibular fracture risk when evaluated under traumatic forces. PEEK SPI treatment may provide a less invasive treatment model for patients with severely atrophic mandibles. Additionally, 2-piece subperiosteal implants may provide greater design flexibility in clinical applications and offer advantages in stress distribution, expanding the range of treatment options available to clinicians.
Keywords: atrophic mandible; edentulous mandible; finite element analysis; subperiosteal implants; trauma.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of treatment options for atrophic mandible under trauma forces: a 3D finite element analysis treatment options for atrophic mandible under trauma forces.BMC Oral Health. 2025 Apr 30;25(1):668. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06047-6. BMC Oral Health. 2025. PMID: 40307754 Free PMC article.
-
Biomechanical evaluation of conventional, zygomatic, zygomatic bone anchored subperiosteal and maxilla anchored subperiosteal implants applied totally edentulous maxilla: finite element stress analysis.BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jul 2;25(1):1038. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06387-3. BMC Oral Health. 2025. PMID: 40604849 Free PMC article.
-
Two-piece versus single-piece patient-specific titanium subperiosteal implants in atrophied edentulous mandibles: A finite element analysis.Comput Biol Med. 2025 Sep;196(Pt C):110897. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110897. Epub 2025 Aug 7. Comput Biol Med. 2025. PMID: 40779986
-
Surgical techniques used in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients with atrophic posterior mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;45(8):1236-1245. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.04.011. Epub 2017 Apr 27. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017. PMID: 28552200
-
Finite element method of subperiosteal implants: a systematic review on biomechanical performance and stress distribution.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025 Sep;53(9):1275-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2025.04.018. Epub 2025 May 20. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025. PMID: 40399179
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources