TY - JOUR
T1 - Tilted and short implants supporting fixed prosthesis in an atrophic maxilla
T2 - A 3D-FEA biomechanical evaluation
AU - Almeida, Erika O.
AU - Rocha, Eduardo P.
AU - Júnior, Amilcar C.Freitas
AU - Anchieta, Rodolfo B.
AU - Poveda, Ronald
AU - Gupta, Nikhil
AU - Coelho, Paulo G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - Purpose: This study compared the biomechanical behavior of tilted long implant and vertical short implants to support fixed prosthesis in an atrophic maxilla. Materials and Methods: The maxilla model was built based on a tomographic image of the patient. Implant models were based on micro-computer tomography imaging of implants. The different configurations considered were M4S, four vertical anterior implants; M4T, two mesial vertical implants and two distal tilted (45°) implants in the anterior region of the maxilla; and M6S, four vertical anterior implants and two vertical posterior implants. Numerical simulation was carried out under bilateral 150N loads applied in the cantilever region in axial (L1) and oblique (45°) (L2) direction. Bone was analyzed using the maximum and minimum principal stress (σmax and σmin), and von Mises stress (σvM) assessments. Implants were analyzed using the σvM. Results: The higher σmax was observed at: M4T, followed by M6S/L1, M6S/L2, M4S/L2, and M4S/L1 and the higher σvM: M4T/L1, M4T/L2 and M4S/L2, M6S/L2, M4S/L1, and M6S/L1. Conclusions: The presence of distal tilted (all-on-four) and distal short implants (all-on-six) resulted in higher stresses in both situations in the maxillary bone in comparison to the presence of vertical implants (all-on-four).
AB - Purpose: This study compared the biomechanical behavior of tilted long implant and vertical short implants to support fixed prosthesis in an atrophic maxilla. Materials and Methods: The maxilla model was built based on a tomographic image of the patient. Implant models were based on micro-computer tomography imaging of implants. The different configurations considered were M4S, four vertical anterior implants; M4T, two mesial vertical implants and two distal tilted (45°) implants in the anterior region of the maxilla; and M6S, four vertical anterior implants and two vertical posterior implants. Numerical simulation was carried out under bilateral 150N loads applied in the cantilever region in axial (L1) and oblique (45°) (L2) direction. Bone was analyzed using the maximum and minimum principal stress (σmax and σmin), and von Mises stress (σvM) assessments. Implants were analyzed using the σvM. Results: The higher σmax was observed at: M4T, followed by M6S/L1, M6S/L2, M4S/L2, and M4S/L1 and the higher σvM: M4T/L1, M4T/L2 and M4S/L2, M6S/L2, M4S/L1, and M6S/L1. Conclusions: The presence of distal tilted (all-on-four) and distal short implants (all-on-six) resulted in higher stresses in both situations in the maxillary bone in comparison to the presence of vertical implants (all-on-four).
KW - Biomechanics
KW - Dental implants
KW - Finite element analysis
KW - Osseointegration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028264611&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028264611&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/cid.12129
DO - 10.1111/cid.12129
M3 - Article
C2 - 23910435
AN - SCOPUS:85028264611
SN - 1523-0899
VL - 17
SP - e332-e342
JO - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
JF - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
IS - S1
ER -