Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Photoelastic and finite element stress analysis reliability for implant-supported system stress investigation
Presotto, Anna Gabriella Camacho; Bhering, Cláudia Lopes Brilhante; Caldas, Ricardo Armini; Consani, Rafael Leonardo Xediek; Barão, Valentim Adelino Ricardo; Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz.
  • Presotto, Anna Gabriella Camacho; University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology. Piracicaba. BR
  • Bhering, Cláudia Lopes Brilhante; Federal University of Minas Gerais. School of Dentistry. Department of Restorative Dentistry. Belo Horizonte. BR
  • Caldas, Ricardo Armini; University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology. Piracicaba. BR
  • Consani, Rafael Leonardo Xediek; University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology. Piracicaba. BR
  • Barão, Valentim Adelino Ricardo; University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology. Piracicaba. BR
  • Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz; University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology. Piracicaba. BR
Braz. j. oral sci ; 17: e181097, 2018. ilus
Article in English | LILACS, BBO | ID: biblio-963829
ABSTRACT

Aim:

To compare the reliability between photoelastic and finite element (FE) analyses by evaluating the effect of different marginal misfit levels on the stresses generated on two different implant-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-unit CoCr 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 average of 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 the in silico analysis. Maximum and minimum principal strain were recorded numerically and color-coded for the models. Von Mises Stress was obtained for the metallic components.

Results:

Photoelasticity and FE analyses showed similar tendency where the increase of misfit generates higher stress levels despite of the 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 showed higher µstrain values for all simulated misfit levels. The type of implant 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
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Biomechanical Phenomena / Dental Implants / Finite Element Analysis / Optical Phenomena Language: English Journal: Braz. j. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2018 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Minas Gerais/BR / University of Campinas/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Biomechanical Phenomena / Dental Implants / Finite Element Analysis / Optical Phenomena Language: English Journal: Braz. j. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2018 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Federal University of Minas Gerais/BR / University of Campinas/BR