Comparison of Stress Distribution in Implant-Supported Overdentures: Standard vs. Mini Implants
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences
3 Post-Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
10.22122/jids.v21.i3.0240
Abstract
Introduction: Mini implants are an alternative to standard implants for mandibular implant-supported overdentures. However, they may induce higher stress levels on the crestal bone. This finite element analysis (FEA) study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior (stress distribution patterns) of mandibular overdentures supported by two standard implants or two mini implants.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study using the finite element analysis method, a CBCT scan was obtained from the mandible of a completely edentulous patient at the Faculty of Dentistry, Yazd, in 2022. After fabricating a complete denture, the denture was scanned. The mandibular 3D model was developed using Mimics software. Two standard implants (4.8 mm diameter, 12 mm length) and two mini implants (2.4 mm diameter, 12 mm length) were placed in the canine region to support the overdenture in two separate models. The biomechanical behavior (stress distribution) under unilateral and bilateral 100 N loading conditions was assessed.
Results: The stress exerted on overdentures supported by two mini-implants was calculated to be 214% higher under bilateral loading and 155% higher under unilateral loading compared to overdentures supported by two standard implants. The stress exerted on the bone in the two mini-implant model was 117% and 69% higher than in the two standard implant model under unilateral and bilateral loading conditions, respectively.
Conclusion: The use of standard implants instead of mini-implants is recommended for supporting mandibular implant-retained overdentures.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study using the finite element analysis method, a CBCT scan was obtained from the mandible of a completely edentulous patient at the Faculty of Dentistry, Yazd, in 2022. After fabricating a complete denture, the denture was scanned. The mandibular 3D model was developed using Mimics software. Two standard implants (4.8 mm diameter, 12 mm length) and two mini implants (2.4 mm diameter, 12 mm length) were placed in the canine region to support the overdenture in two separate models. The biomechanical behavior (stress distribution) under unilateral and bilateral 100 N loading conditions was assessed.
Results: The stress exerted on overdentures supported by two mini-implants was calculated to be 214% higher under bilateral loading and 155% higher under unilateral loading compared to overdentures supported by two standard implants. The stress exerted on the bone in the two mini-implant model was 117% and 69% higher than in the two standard implant model under unilateral and bilateral loading conditions, respectively.
Conclusion: The use of standard implants instead of mini-implants is recommended for supporting mandibular implant-retained overdentures.
Highlights
Fatemeh Javadi Moghaddam: Google Schola
Hadi Salimi Manshadi: PubMed, Google Scholar
Farideh Sadat Mahdavi Anari: PubMed, Google Scholar
Alireza Akhlaghi: PubMed, Google Scholar
Keywords
- Das KP, Jahangiri L, Katz RV. The first-choice standard of care for an edentulous mandible: a Delphi method survey of academic prosthodontists in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143(8): 881-9.
- Jackson BJ. Fixed partial denture treatment with mini dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40(6): 744-50.
- Flanagan D, Mascolo A. The mini dental implant in fixed and removable prosthetics: a review. J Oral Implantol 2011; 37: 123-32.
- Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J. How successful are small‐diameter implants? A literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(5): 515-25.
- Shatkin TE, Shatkin S, Oppenheimer BD, Oppenheimer AJ. Mini dental implants for long-term fixed and removable prosthetics: a retrospective analysis of 2514 implants placed over a five-year period. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007; 28(2): 92-9; quiz 100.
- Preoteasa E, Meleşcanu-Imre M, Preoteasa CT, Marin M, Lerner H. Aspects of oral morphology as decision factors in mini-implant supported overdenture. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2010; 51(2): 309-14.
- Patil PG, Seow LL, Uddanwadikar R, Ukey PD. Biomechanical behavior of mandibular overdenture retained by two standard implants or 2 mini implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125(1):138. e1-e8.
- El Osta N, El Osta L, Moukaddem F, Papazian T, Saad R, Hennequin M, et al. Impact of implant-supported prostheses on nutritional status and oral health perception in edentulous patients. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2017; 18: 49-54.
- El-Anwar MI, Yousief SA, Soliman TA, Saleh MM, Omar WS. A finite element study on stress distribution of two different attachment designs under implant supported overdenture. Saudi Dent J 2015; 27(4): 201-7.
- Meijer H, Starmans F, Steen W, Bosman F. A three-dimensional, finite-element analysis of bone around dental implants in an edentulous human mandible. Arch Oral Biol 1993; 38(6): 491-6.
- García-Braz SH, Prados-Privado M, Zanatta LCS, Calvo-Guirado JL, Prados-Frutos JC, Gehrke SA. A finite element analysis to compare stress distribution on extra-short implants with two different internal connections. J Clin Med 2019; 8(8): 1103.
- Sharma AJ, Nagrath R, Lahori M. A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture: An: in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017; 17(4): 361-72.
- Meijer H, Kuiper J, Starmans F, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68(1): 96-102.
- Šćepanović M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Marković A, Delgado-Ruiz R, Todorović A, Miličić B, et al. A 1-year prospective cohort study on mandibular overdentures retained by mini dental implants. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012; 5(4): 367-79.
- ELsyad MA, Maryod WH, Mostafa AZ. Effect of implant position on clinical and radiographic outcomes of locator‐retained mandibular overdentures: a 1‐year prospective study. J Prosthodont 2019; 28(2): e699-e704.
- Gibreel MF, Khalifa A, Said MM, Mahanna F, El-Amier N, Närhi TO, et al. Biomechanical aspects of reinforced implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 91: 202-11.
- Jofre J, Cendoya P, Muñoz P. Effect of splinting mini-implants on marginal bone loss: a biomechanical model and clinical randomized study with mandibular overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25(6): 1137-44.
- Chang S-H, Huang S-R, Huang S-F, Lin C-L. Mechanical response comparison in an implant overdenture retained by ball attachments on conventional regular and mini dental implants: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2016; 19(8): 911-21.
- Topkaya T, Solmaz MY. The effect of implant number and position on the stress behavior of mandibular implant retained overdentures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 2015; 48(10): 2102-9.
- Solberg K, Heinemann F, Pellikaan P, Keilig L, Stark H, Bourauel C, et al. Finite element analysis of different loading conditions for implant-supported overdentures supported by conventional or mini implants. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2017; 20(7): 770-82.
)