Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained vs. Cementless Screw-Retained
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Choice of Materials
2.2. Loading Conditions
2.3. Finite Element Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Stress and Strain under Vertical Load
3.2. Stress and Strain under Oblique Load (30 Degrees)
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kim, J.J.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.C.; Lee, J.B.; Yeo, I.L. Biological responses to the transitional area of dental implants: Material- and structure-dependent responses of peri-implant tissue to abutments. Materials 2020, 13, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Herekar, M.G.; Patil, V.N.; Mulani, S.S.; Sethi, M.; Padhye, O. The influence of thread geometry on biomechanical load transfer to bone: A finite element analysis comparing two implant thread designs. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 11, 489–494. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.C.; Kim, H.Y.; Yeo, I.L. Influence of connections and surfaces of dental implants on marginal bone loss: A retrospective study over 7 to 19 years. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 35, 1195–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nissan, J.; Narobai, D.; Gross, O.; Ghelfan, O.; Chaushu, G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011, 26, 1102–1107. [Google Scholar]
- Michalakis, K.X.; Hirayama, H.; Garefis, P.D. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 719–728. [Google Scholar]
- Chee, W.; Jivraj, S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br. Dent. J. 2006, 201, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.H.; Yang, S.E.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.Y. Influence of luting materials and methods and the restoration surface on the amount of cement remnants in implant restorations. J. Oral Implantol. 2019, 45, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guichet, D.L.; Caputo, A.A.; Choi, H.; Sorensen, J.A. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2000, 15, 239–246. [Google Scholar]
- Dogus, S.M.; Kurtz, K.S.; Watanabe, I.; Griggs, J.A. Effect of engaging abutment position in implant-borne, screw-retained three-unit fixed cantilevered prostheses. J. Prosthodont. 2011, 20, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierrisnard, L.; Hure, G.; Barquins, M.; Chappard, D. Two dental implants designed for immediate loading: A finite element analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2002, 17, 353–362. [Google Scholar]
- Chun, H.J.; Cheong, S.Y.; Han, J.H.; Heo, S.J.; Chung, J.P.; Rhyu, I.C.; Choi, Y.C.; Baik, H.K.; Ku, Y.; Kim, M.H. Evaluation of design parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2002, 29, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrie, C.S.; Williams, J.L. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: Influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2005, 16, 486–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anitua, E.; Orive, G. Finite element analysis of the influence of the offset placement of an implant-supported prosthesis on bone stress distribution. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009, 89, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.H.; Kim, S.H.; Han, J.S.; Yeo, I.L.; Yoon, H.I. Optical and surface properties of monolithic zirconia after simulated toothbrushing. Materials 2019, 12, 1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Denry, I.; Kelly, J.R. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christel, P.; Meunier, A.; Dorlot, J.M.; Crolet, J.M.; Witvoet, J.; Sedel, L.; Boutin, P. Biomechanical compatibility and design of ceramic implants for orthopedic surgery. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1988, 523, 234–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guess, P.C.; Att, W.; Strub, J.R. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervino, G.; Romeo, U.; Lauritano, F.; Bramanti, E.; Fiorillo, L.; D’Amico, C.; Milone, D.; Laino, L.; Campolongo, F.; Rapisarda, S.; et al. Fem and von Mises analysis of OSSTEM® dental implant structural components: Evaluation of different direction dynamic loads. Open Dent. J. 2018, 12, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cicciu, M.; Bramanti, E.; Matacena, G.; Guglielmino, E.; Risitano, G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2014, 7, 817–825. [Google Scholar]
- Yokoyama, S.; Wakabayashi, N.; Shiota, M.; Ohyama, T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2004, 91, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochiai, K.T.; Ozawa, S.; Caputo, A.A.; Nishimura, R.D. Photoelastic stress analysis of implant-tooth connected prostheses with segmented and nonsegmented abutments. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2003, 89, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aalaei, S.; Rajabi Naraki, Z.; Nematollahi, F.; Beyabanaki, E.; Shahrokhi Rad, A. Stress distribution pattern of screw-retained restorations with segmented vs. non-segmented abutments: A finite element analysis. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 2017, 11, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rangert, B.; Gunne, J.; Glantz, P.O.; Svensson, A. Vertical load distribution on a three-unit prosthesis supported by a natural tooth and a single Brånemark implant. An in vivo study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 1995, 6, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, E.A.; Assunção, W.G.; Tabata, L.F.; Barão, V.A.; Delben, J.A.; de Sousa, E.A. Effect of passive fit absence in the pros-thesis/implant/retaining screw system: A two-dimensional finite element analysis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2009, 20, 2000–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sato, Y.; Shindoi, N.; Hosokawa, R.; Tsuga, K.; Akagawa, Y. A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially eden-tulous region. J. Oral Rehabil. 2000, 27, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siadat, H.; Hashemzadeh, S.; Geramy, A.; Bassir, S.H.; Alikhasi, M. The Effect of offset implant placement on the stress distribution around a dental implant: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J. Oral Implantol. 2015, 41, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pellizzer, E.P.; Falcón-Antenucci, R.M.; de Carvalho, P.S.; Sánchez, D.M.; Rinaldi, G.A.; de Aguirre, C.C.; Goiato, M.C. Influence of implant angulation with different crowns on stress distribution. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2011, 22, 434–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, L.; Todo, M.; Matsushita, Y.; Koyano, K. Effects of im-plant diameter, insertion depth, and loading angle on stress/strain fields in implant/jawbone systems: Finite ele-ment analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 877–886. [Google Scholar]
Component | Cement-Retained Model | Screw-Retained Model |
---|---|---|
Fixture | 4.5 × 11 mm | 4.5 × 11 mm |
Abutment | 5.5 × 11.25 mm | 5.7 × 10.7 mm |
Link | – | 4.3 × 3.5 mm |
Screw | 2.3 × 9.5 mm | 2.3 × 8.5 mm |
Crown | 8.0 × 10 mm | 8.0 × 10 mm |
Component | Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) | Poisson’s Ratio (ν) | Density (kg/m3) |
---|---|---|---|
Cancellous Bone | 1.3 | 0.30 | 500 |
Cortical Bone | 13 | 0.30 | 1180 |
Titanium (Fixture, Abutment, Link, Screw) | 103 | 0.33 | 4620 |
Zirconia (Crown) | 200 | 0.31 | 6090 |
Component | Cement-Retained Model | Screw-Retained Model |
---|---|---|
Implant (stress) | 65.3 MPa | 26.3 MPa |
Bone (stress) | 34.04 MPa | 9.97 MPa |
Bone (strain) | 0.0084 mm/mm | 0.0015 mm/mm |
Component | Cement-Retained Model | Screw-Retained Model |
---|---|---|
Implant (stress) | 110.6 MPa | 79.83 MPa |
Bone (stress) | 52.71 MPa | 20.63 MPa |
Bone (strain) | 0.012 mm/mm | 0.002 mm/mm |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, J.-H.; Jang, H.Y.; Lee, S.Y. Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained vs. Cementless Screw-Retained. Materials 2021, 14, 2666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14102666
Lee J-H, Jang HY, Lee SY. Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained vs. Cementless Screw-Retained. Materials. 2021; 14(10):2666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14102666
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Jae-Hyun, Ho Yeol Jang, and Su Young Lee. 2021. "Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained vs. Cementless Screw-Retained" Materials 14, no. 10: 2666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14102666