Journal of Isfahan Dental School

Compariosion of Maxillary All-on-four, All-on-five and All-on-six: Finite Element Analysis

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Dentist, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Post Graduate Student, Dental Students Research Committee, Department of Prostodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: The study's purpose was to compare the maxillary All-on-four, All-on-five, and All-on-six designs in terms of stress distribution in the bone and various components of the prosthesis design.
Materials and Methods: This finite element analysis study was carried out descriptively in 2024 at the Faculty of Dentistry in Isfahan. An edentulous maxillary model and three implant-based fixed prostheses were designed. Design 1 (All on four): two vertical anterior implants in the position of the lateral teeth and two posterior implants with an angle of 30 degrees in the position of the second premolars. Design 2( All on five): one vertical implant in the position of the central tooth, two vertical implants in the position of the lateral teeth, and two posterior implants with an angle of 30 degrees in the position of the second premolars. Design 3 (All on six): two vertical implants in the position of the central teeth, two vertical implants in the position of the canine teeth, and two short vertical implants in the position of the first molars.
A force of 100 Newtons was applied to the left end of the superstructure, and then the maximum stress in the bone and corresponding prosthetic structures were compared.
Findings: The All-on-Six design caused the least stress in the bone and prosthetic structures, and the All-on-Four design caused the most stress.
Conclusion: Among the designs evaluated, the All-on-six demonstrated the most favorable biomechanical performance. The All-on-four design exhibited the highest stress levels within bone and prosthetic components. While the All-on-five design presented intermediate stress levels compared to the other two models.
Keywords: Dental implant; Maxilla; All on four; Support; Finite element analysis

1. Asawa N, Bulbule N, Kakade D, Shah R. Angulated implants: an alternative to bone augmentation and sinus lift procedure: systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(3): ZE10-3.
2. Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22(4): 639-44.
3. Tealdo T, Bevilacqua M, Pera F, Menini M, Ravera G, Drago C, et al. Immediate function with fixed implant-supported maxillary dentures: a 12-month pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99(5): 351-60.
4. Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. A retrospective analysis of 44 implants with no rotational primary stability used for fixed prosthesis anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22(3): 467-71.
5. Agliardi E, Francetti L, Romeo D, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M. Immediate loading in the fully edentulous maxilla without bone grafting: the V-II-V technique. Minerva Stomatol 2008; 57(5): 251-9, 259-63.
6. Graves S, Mahler BA, Javid B, Armellini D, Jensen OT. Maxillary all-on-four therapy using angled implants: a 16-month clinical study of 1110 implants in 276 jaws. Dental Clinics 2011; 55(4): 779-94.
7. Menini M, Signori A, Tealdo T, Bevilacqua M, Pera F, Ravera G, et al. Tilted implants in the immediate loading rehabilitation of the maxilla: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012; 91(9): 821-7.
8. Block MS, Haggerty CJ, Fisher GR. Nongrafting implant options for restoration of the edentulous maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67(4): 872-81.
9. Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Simplified treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla via immediate/early function and tilted implants: a prospective 1‐year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7(Suppl 1): S1-12.
10. Sorni M, Guarinos J, Garcia O, Peñarrocha M. Implant rehabilitation of the atrophic upper jaw: a review of the literature since 1999. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2005; 10(Suppl 1): E45-56.
11. Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Petersson U, Wigren S. A pilot study of complete edentulous rehabilitation with immediate function using a new implant design: case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8(4): 223-32.
12. Malo P, Friberg B, Polizzi G, Gualini F, Vighagen T, Rangert B. Immediate and early function of Brånemark System® implants placed in the esthetic zone: a 1‐year prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5(s1): 37-46.
13. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All‐on‐Four” immediate‐function concept with Brånemark System® implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5(Suppl 1): 2-9.
14. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All‐on‐4 immediate‐function concept with Brånemark System® implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1‐year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7(Suppl 1): s88-s94.
15. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85(6): 585-98.
16. Gultekin BA, Gultekin P, Yalcin S. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry. Croatia: Intech: IntechOpen; 2012. p. 21-54.
17. Soto-Peñaloza D, Zaragozi-Alonso R, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9(3): e474-e488.
18. Poletto-Neto V, Tretto PHW, Zen BM, Bacchi A, Dos Santos MBF. Influence of implant inclination and prosthetic abutment type on the biomechanics of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. J Oral Implantol 2019; 45(5): 343-50.
19. Baggi L, Pastore S, Di Girolamo M, Vairo G. Implant-bone load transfer mechanisms in complete-arch prostheses supported by four implants: a three-dimensional finite element approach. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109(1): 9-21.
20. Sun X, Tang X, Cheng K, Xia Z, Liu Y, Yang F, et al. Comparative biomechanics of all-on-4 and vertical implant placement in asymmetrical mandibular: a finite element study. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24(1): 425.
21. Kaya İ, Tuğcu F. Evaluation of stress distribution on all-on-four concept and conventional implant designs: 3D finite element analysis. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine 2021; 25(1): 46-52.
22. Bonifacius S, Rikmasari R, Dirgantara T, Sukotjo C, Sulaiman MY. A Biomechanical Finite Element Analysis of All-on-Four Concept using Short Implants in Maxilla. J Int Dent Med Res 2024; 17(1): 93-8.
23. Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RLX, Barão VAR. 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 Mater Biol Appl 2016; 69: 715-25.
24. Saber FS, Ghasemi S, Koodaryan R, Babaloo A, Abolfazli N. The comparison of stress distribution with different implant numbers and inclination angles in all-on-four and conventional methods in maxilla: a finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2015; 9(4): 246-53.
25. Silveira MPM, Campaner LM, Bottino MA, Nishioka RS, Borges ALS, Tribst JPM. Influence of the dental implant number and load direction on stress distribution in a 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Dent Med Probl 2021; 58(1): 69-74.
26. Lee JI, Lee Y, Kim YL, Cho HW. Effect of implant number and distribution on load transfer in implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses for the anterior maxilla: A photoelastic stress analysis study. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115(2): 161-9.
27. Gümrükçü Z, Korkmaz YT. Influence of implant number, length, and tilting degree on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study. Med Biol Eng Comput 2018; 56(6): 979-89.
28. De Luna Gomes JM, Lemos CAA, Santiago Junior JF, de Moraes SLD, Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP. Optimal number of implants for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses with a follow-up of at least 5 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121(5): 766-774.e3.
29. Daudt Polido W, Aghaloo T, Emmett TW, Taylor TD, Morton D. Number of implants placed for complete-arch fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29(Suppl 16): 154-83.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 20, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
February 2025