Photoelastic and finite element stress analysis reliability for implant-supported system stress investigation

  • Anna Gabriella Camacho Presotto
  • Cláudia Lopes Brilhante Bhering
  • Ricardo Armini Caldas
  • Rafael Leonardo Xediek Consani
  • Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão
  • Marcelo Ferraz Mesquita

Abstract

Aim: To compare the reliability between photoelastic and finiteelement (FE) analyses by evaluating the effect of differentmarginal misfit levels on the stresses generated on two differentimplant-supported systems using conventional and short implants. Methods: Two photoelastic models were obtained: model C with two conventional implants (4.1×11 mm); and model S with a conventional and a short implant (5×6 mm). Three-unitCoCr frameworks were fabricated simulating a superior first pre-molar (P) to first molar (M) fixed dental prosthesis. Different levels of misfit (μm) were selected based on the misfit averageof 10 frameworks obtained by the single-screw test protocol: low (<20), medium (>20 and <40) and high (>40). Stress levels and distribution were measured by photoelastic analysis. A similar situation of the in vitro assay was designed and simulated by thein silico analysis. Maximum and minimum principal strain wererecorded numerically and color-coded for the models. Von Mises Stress was obtained for the metallic components. Results:Photoelasticity and FE analyses showed similar tendency wherethe increase of misfit generates higher stress levels despite ofthe implant design. The short implant showed lower von Mises stress values; however, it presented stresses around its full length for the in vitro and in silico analysis. Also, model S showedhigher μstrain values for all simulated misfit levels. The type ofimplant did not affect the stresses around pillar P. Conclusions:Photoelasticity and FEA are reliable methodologies presenting similarity for the investigation of the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported rehabilitations.

References

1. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996;7:329–36.
2. Pesqueira AA, Goiato MC, Filho HG, et al. Use of stress analysis methods to evaluate the biomechanics of oral rehabilitation with implants. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40:217–28.
3. Rodrigues SA, Presotto AGC, Barão VAR, et al. The role of welding techniques in the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017;78:435–42.
4. Presotto AGC, Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF, et al. Marginal fit and photoelastic stress analysis of CAD- CAM and overcast 3-unit implant-supported frameworks. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2017;373–9.
5. Spazzin AO, Henriques GEP, de Arruda Nóbilo MA, et al. Influence of prosthetic screw material on joint stability in passive and non-passive implant-supported dentures. Open Dent J. 2009;3:245–9.
6. Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, et al. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:209–18.
7. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6:270–6.
8. Hasan I, Bourauel C, Mundt T, et al. Biomechanics and load resistance of short dental implants: a review of the literature. ISRN Dent. 2013;2013.
9. Chang S-H, Lin C-L, Lin Y-S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of a single short and wide implant with monocortical or bicortical engagement in the atrophic posterior maxilla and a long implant in the augmented sinus. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:102-11.
10. Şeker E, Ulusoy M, Ozan O, et al. Biomechanical effects of different fixed partial denture designs planned on bicortically anchored short, graft-supported long, or 45-degree–inclined long implants in the posterior maxilla: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:1–9.
11. Atieh M a, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, et al. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:1323–31.
12. Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Vol. 7, Clinical oral implants research. 1996. p. 143–52.
13. Santiago JF, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, et al. Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: A 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C. 2013;33:4700–14.
14. Anami LC, da Costa Lima JM, Takahashi FE, et al. stress distribution around osseointegrated implants with different internal-cone connections: photoelastic and finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41:155–62.
15. Kim S, Kim S, Choi H, et al. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of short dental implants in the posterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2014;29:155-64.
16. Turcio KHL, Goiato MC, Gennari Filho H, et al. Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution in oral rehabilitation. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20:471–4.
17. Bhering CLB, Bhering, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, et al. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: A prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;69:715–25.
18. Pereira IP, Consani RLX, Mesquita MF, et al. Photoelastic analysis of stresses transmitted by complete dentures lined with hard or soft liners. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015;55:181–6.
19. Byrne D, Jacobs S, O’Connell B, et al. Preloads generated with repeated tightening in three types of screws used in dental implant assemblies. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:164–71.
20. Monje A, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, et al. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1119–24.
21. Hasan I, Heinemann F, Aitlahrach M, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implant. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2010;55:341–50.
22. Pellizzer EP, de Mello CC, Santiago Junior JF, et al. Analysis of the biomechanical behavior of short implants: The photo-elasticity method. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;55:187–92.
23. Boyer R, Welsch G and EWC. Materials Properties Handbook: Titanium Alloys. ASM Int Mater Park OH; 1994.
24. Spazzin AO, Abreu RT, Noritomi PY, et al. evaluation of stress distribution in overdenture-retaining bar with different levels of vertical misfit. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(4):280–5.
25. Archangelo CM, Rocha EP, Pereira JA, et al. Periodontal ligament influence on the stress distribution in a removable partial denture supported by implant: a finite element analysis. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20:362–8.
Published
2017-11-13
How to Cite
PRESOTTO, Anna Gabriella Camacho et al. Photoelastic and finite element stress analysis reliability for implant-supported system stress investigation. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e181097, nov. 2017. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/1386>. Date accessed: 17 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8652941.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)