Mechanical effects of residual bone mass, a maxillofacial prosthesis, and a reconstruction plate on the mandible after marginal resection.

In this study, analytic models were used to simulate marginal resection in the area of the second premolar to the second molar region, and the mechanical effects on the mandible of residual bone mass, a maxillofacial prosthesis, and a reconstruction plate were evaluated by three-dimensional finite element analysis. As residual bone mass decreased, maximum principal stress increased near the anterior ramus of the mandible, and maximum shear stress increased at the anterior buccal region of the resected area. In the mandible with a maxillofacial prosthesis, the maximum principal stress distribution at the anterior ramus was lower, and the distribution of maximum shear stress at the anterior buccal region of the resected area was higher. When a reconstruction plate was used, maximum principal stress and maximum shear stress were lower. Thus, lower residual bone mass was associated with increased mandible deflection and torsion. In addition, presence of a maxillofacial prosthesis decreased deflection but increased torsion, and presence of a reconstruction plate decreased deflection and greatly decreased torsion. These findings suggest that decreased residual bone mass and maxillofacial prostheses increase fracture risk; however, presence of a reconstruction plate was effective in decreasing torsional stress, thereby reducing fracture risk in the mandible.

Mechanical analysis of the effects of implant position and abutment height on implant-assisted removable partial dentures.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of clinical reports describe the use of dental implants as abutments in implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPD). We used three-dimensional finite element analysis to evaluate IARPD as a unilateral mandibular distal extension denture. Specifically, the mechanical effects of implant position and abutment height on the abutment tooth, denture, and denture-supporting tissue were assessed. METHODS: The models analyzed were defects of the left mandibular second premolar and first and second molars prosthetically treated with an IARPD using one implant for each tooth position. There were two abutment heights: one equal to that of the mucosa and another that was elevated 2 mm above the mucosa. Six models were constructed. RESULTS: For mucosal-level abutments, movement of the abutment tooth was lower for implants positioned distal to the abutment tooth than for those positioned medial to the abutment tooth. For elevated abutments, movement of the abutment tooth was lower for implants positioned medial to the abutment tooth than for those positioned distal to the abutment tooth. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical effects on abutment teeth at the same implant position differed in relation to implant abutment height.