Reinforcing the retention of provisional restoration using provisional implant on maxillary anterior region: clinical case report / 대한치과보철학회지

Proper management of provisional prosthesis is key to success in prosthodontics. Provisional restoration on maxillary anterior missing area frequently come across a incident of falling off especially in patients with long span pontics and oval arch shape. This is because maxillary anterior teeth are more exposed to horizontal force than the posterior teeth and additional anterior cantilever effect will negatively affect to the retention of provisional prosthesis. Beside that maxillary anterior provisional prosthesis should provide proper incisal guidance during the mandibular functional movements. However occlusal contacts on the prosthesis in maximum intercuspal position are located on opposite side of fulcrum line of prosthesis which will cause removing force against the provisional prosthesis. This case report present that provisional implant prevent pre-described harmful effect on maxillary anterior fixed provisional prosthesis and provide comfort and satisfactory result during post-extraction healing period.

Macro design effects on stress distribution around implants: A photoelastic stress analysis.

Objectives: Biomechanics is one of the main factors for achieving long-term success of implant supported prostheses. Long-term failures mostly depend on biomechanical complications. It is important to distinguish the effects of macro design of the implants. Materials and Methods: In this study, the photoelastic response of four different types of implants that were inserted with different angulations were comparatively analyzed. The implant types investigated were screw cylinder (ITI, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland), stepped cylinder (Frialit2, Friadent GmbH, Manheim, Germany), root form (Camlog Rootline, Alatatec, Wilshelm, Germany), and cylindrical implant, with micro-threads on the implant neck (Astra, AstraTech, Mölndal, Sweden). In the test models, one of the implants was inserted straight, while the other one was aligned mesially with 15° angles. The superstructures were prepared as single crowns. A 150N loading was applied to the restorations throughout the test. Results: A comparison of the implant designs showed that there were no significant differences between the straight implants; however, between the inclined implants, the most favorable stress distribution was seen with the stepped cylinder implants. The least favorable stress concentration was observed around the root formed implants. Microthreads around the implant neck appeared to be effective in a homogenous stress distribution. Observations showed that misaligned implants caused less stress than straight implants, but the stress concentrations were not homogenous. Conclusion: As there were observable differences between the implant types, straight placed cylindrical implants showed better stress distribution characteristics, while inclined tapering implants had better stress distribution characteristics.

The three dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution and deformation in mandible according to the position of pontic in two implants supported three-unit fixed partial denture

Excessive concentration of stress which is occurred in occlusion around the implant in case of the implant supported fixed partial denture has been known to be the main cause of the crestal bone destruction. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the stress analysis on supporting tissue to get higher success rates of implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of stress distribution and deformation in 3 different types of three-unit fixed partial denture supported by two implants, using a three dimensional finite element analysis in a three dimensional model of a whole mandible. A mechanical model of an edentulous mandible was generated from 3D scan, assuming two implants were placed in the left premolars area. According to the position of pontic, the experiments groups were divided into three types. Type I had a pontic in the middle position between two implants, type II in the anterior position, and type III in the posterior position. A 100-N axial load was applied to sites such as the central fossa of anterior and posterior implant abutment, central fossa of pontic, the connector of pontic or the connector between two implants, the mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its four-masticatory muscular supporting system. The results obtained from this study were as follows; 1. The mandible deformed in a way that the condyles converged medially in all types under muscular actions. In comparison with types, the deformations in the type II and type III were greater by 2-2.5 times than in the type I regardless of the loading location. 2. The values of von Mises stresses in cortical and cancellous bone were relatively stable in all types, but slightly increased as the loading position was changed more posteriorly. 3. In comparison with type I, the values of von Mises stress in the implant increased by 73% in Type II and by 77% in Type III when the load was applied anterior and posterior respectively, but when the load was applied to the middle, the values were similar in all types. 4. When the load was applied to the centric fossa of pontic, the values of von Mises stress were nearly 30~35% higher in the type III than type I or II in the cortical and cancellous bone. Also, in the implant, the values of von Mises stress of the type II or III were 160~170% higher than in the type I. 5. When the load was applied to the centric fossa of implant abutment, the values of von Mises stress in the cortical and cancellous bone were relatively 20~25% higher in the type III than in the other types, but in the implant they were 40-45% higher in the type I or II than in the type III. According to the results of this study, musculature modeling is important to the finite element analysis for stress distribution and deformation as the muscular action causes stress concentration. And the type I model is the most stable from a view of biomechanics. Type II is also a clinically acceptable design when the implant is stiff sufficiently and mandibular deformation is considered. Considering the high values of von Mises stress in the cortical bone, type III is not thought as an useful design.

The three dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution and deformation in mandible according to the position of pontic in two implants supported three-unit fixed partial denture

Excessive concentration of stress which is occurred in occlusion around the implant in case of the implant supported fixed partial denture has been known to be the main cause of the crestal bone destruction. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the stress analysis on supporting tissue to get higher success rates of implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of stress distribution and deformation in 3 different types of three-unit fixed partial denture supported by two implants, using a three dimensional finite element analysis in a three dimensional model of a whole mandible. A mechanical model of an edentulous mandible was generated from 3D scan, assuming two implants were placed in the left premolars area. According to the position of pontic, the experiments groups were divided into three types. Type I had a pontic in the middle position between two implants, type II in the anterior position, and type III in the posterior position. A 100-N axial load was applied to sites such as the central fossa of anterior and posterior implant abutment, central fossa of pontic, the connector of pontic or the connector between two implants, the mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its four-masticatory muscular supporting system. The results obtained from this study were as follows; 1. The mandible deformed in a way that the condyles converged medially in all types under muscular actions. In comparison with types, the deformations in the type II and type III were greater by 2-2.5 times than in the type I regardless of the loading location. 2. The values of von Mises stresses in cortical and cancellous bone were relatively stable in all types, but slightly increased as the loading position was changed more posteriorly. 3. In comparison with type I, the values of von Mises stress in the implant increased by 73% in Type II and by 77% in Type III when the load was applied anterior and posterior respectively, but when the load was applied to the middle, the values were similar in all types. 4. When the load was applied to the centric fossa of pontic, the values of von Mises stress were nearly 30~35% higher in the type III than type I or II in the cortical and cancellous bone. Also, in the implant, the values of von Mises stress of the type II or III were 160~170% higher than in the type I. 5. When the load was applied to the centric fossa of implant abutment, the values of von Mises stress in the cortical and cancellous bone were relatively 20~25% higher in the type III than in the other types, but in the implant they were 40-45% higher in the type I or II than in the type III. According to the results of this study, musculature modeling is important to the finite element analysis for stress distribution and deformation as the muscular action causes stress concentration. And the type I model is the most stable from a view of biomechanics. Type II is also a clinically acceptable design when the implant is stiff sufficiently and mandibular deformation is considered. Considering the high values of von Mises stress in the cortical bone, type III is not thought as an useful design.

Clinical and radiographical evaluation of implant-supported fixed partial prostheses / 대한치과보철학회지

Statement of problem: A conventional 3-unit fixed partial denture design with a pontic between two retainers is the most commonly used. However, in cases where the mental nerve is in close proximity to the second premolar, a cantilever design can be considered. As such, logical and scientific evidence is lacking for the number and position of implants to be placed for partially edentulous patients, and no clear-cut set of treatment principles currently exist. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate prognosis of implant-supported fixed partial dentures, and to compare changes in bone level which may rise due to the different factors. Material and method: The present study examined radiographical marginal bone loss in patients treated with implant-supported fixed partial dentures(87 prostheses supported by 227 implants) and evaluated the influence of the span of the pontic, type of the opposing dentition. Clinical complications were studied using a retrospective method. Within the limitation of this study, the following result were drawn. Result: 1. Seven of a total of 227 implants restored with fixed prostheses failed, resulting in a 96.9% success rate. 2. Complications encountered during recall appointments included dissolution of temporary luting agent (17 cases), porcelain fracture (8 cases), loosened screws (5 cases), gingival recession (4 cases), and gingival enlargement (1 case). 3. Marginal bone loss, 1 year after prosthesis placement, was significant(P<0.05) in the group that underwent bone grafting, however no difference in annual resorption rate was observed afterwards. 4. Marginal bone loss, 1 year post-placement, was greater in cantilever-type prostheses than in centric pontic protheses(P<0.05). 5. Marginal bone loss was more pronounced in posterior regions compared to anterior regions(P<0.05). 6. The degree of marginal bone loss was proportional to the length of the pontic(P<0.05). Conclusion: The success rate of implant-supported fixed partial dentures, including marginal bone loss, was satisfactory in the present study. Factors influencing marginal bone loss included whether bone graft was performed, location of the pontic(s), location of the surgical area in the arch, pontic span. Long-term evaluation is necessary for implant-supported fixed partial dentures, as are further studies on the relationship between functional load and the number of implants to be placed.