Comparison of Different Frameworks and Implant Angulations in All-On-Four and Six Concepts: A Finite Element Analysis
- PMID: 40626455
- DOI: 10.1111/cid.70078
Comparison of Different Frameworks and Implant Angulations in All-On-Four and Six Concepts: A Finite Element Analysis
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to compare the biomechanical behaviors in the all-on-four and all-on-six concept prostheses of different framework materials (cobalt-chromium Co-Cr, titanium Ti, and polyetheretherketone PEEK) and posterior implant angulation in the completely edentulous maxilla.
Material and methods: According to the all-on-four and all-on-six concepts, four different three-dimensional (3D) models were created for the completely edentulous maxilla. The posterior implants were positioned in the premolar region, 30° and 45° angled distally. The frameworks were designed and simulated using the material properties of Co-Cr, Ti, and PEEK. A load of 200 N in the palatobuccal direction was applied to the occlusal surface of the posterior implants bilaterally. The von Mises, maximum, and minimum principal stresses were obtained.
Results: In both concepts, the stress values of the PEEK framework were significantly higher than the stress values of Co-Cr and Ti frameworks in terms of implant, cortical bone, and abutment. The highest von Mises value between frameworks was determined in the Co-Cr framework in the all-on-six concept. Implants with a 45° angle in the posterior showed higher stress values than implants with a 30° angle.
Conclusion: As the number of implants increased, the stress on the implant and cortical bone decreased, while it increased on the abutment and prosthetic framework. The increase in the tilt angle of the posterior implants was directly proportional to the rise in stress concentration.
Keywords: all‐on‐four; all‐on‐six; finite element analysis; framework materials.
© 2025 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Similar articles
-
Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis.BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jul 10;25(1):1142. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06426-z. BMC Oral Health. 2025. PMID: 40640731 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Subperiosteal Implant Designs Applied to Atrophic and Edentulous Mandible Under Traumatic Forces: 3D Finite Element Analysis.J Oral Implantol. 2025 Jul 15;51(3):295-303. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-25-00073. J Oral Implantol. 2025. PMID: 40376767
-
Single implant retained overdentures: Evaluation of effect of implant length and diameter on stress distribution by finite element analysis.J Prosthodont. 2024 Apr;33(4):348-357. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13795. Epub 2023 Dec 7. J Prosthodont. 2024. PMID: 37950537
-
Accurate analysis of titanium and PolyEtherEtherKetone materials as an alternative to cobalt-chrome framework in removable partial denture: A systematic review.Dent Mater. 2024 Nov;40(11):1854-1861. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.036. Epub 2024 Aug 27. Dent Mater. 2024. PMID: 39191558
-
Bioactivity and Osseointegration of PEEK Are Inferior to Those of Titanium: A Systematic Review.J Oral Implantol. 2016 Dec;42(6):512-516. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00072. Epub 2016 Aug 25. J Oral Implantol. 2016. PMID: 27560166
References
-
- M. Srinivasan, P. Kamnoedboon, L. Angst, and F. Müller, “Oral Function in Completely Edentulous Patients Rehabilitated With Implant‐Supported Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 34, no. 26 (2023): 196–239, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14068.
-
- F. Schwarz, A. Schär, K. Nelson, et al., “Recommendations for Implant‐Supported Full‐Arch Rehabilitations in Edentulous Patients: The Oral Reconstruction Foundation Consensus Report,” International Journal of Prosthodontics 34 (2021): 8–20, https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.consensusreport.
-
- M. Damsaz, C. Z. Castagnoli, M. Eshghpour, et al., “Evidence‐Based Clinical Efficacy of Leukocyte and Platelet‐Rich Fibrin in Maxillary Sinus Floor Lift, Graft and Surgical Augmentation Procedures,” Frontiers in Surgery 7 (2020): 537138, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.537138.
-
- H. Öztürk, M. Muğlalı, and R. T. A. Çankaya, “Influence of Different Implant Designs on Stress Distributions in All‐On‐Four Concept: A Finite Element Analysis,” Journal of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery 1010‐5182, no. 25 (2025): 84–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.02.032.
-
- R. Shetty, I. Singh, H. A. Sumayli, et al., “Effect of Prosthetic Framework Material, Cantilever Length and Opposing Arch on Peri‐Implant Strain in an All‐On‐Four Implant Prostheses,” Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 24, no. 6 (2021): 866–873, https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_398_20.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials