Author
Listed:
- K. Solberg
- F. Heinemann
- P. Pellikaan
- L. Keilig
- H. Stark
- C. Bourauel
- I. Hasan
Abstract
The effect of implants’ number on overdenture stability and stress distribution in edentulous mandible, implants and overdenture was numerically investigated for implant-supported overdentures. Three models were constructed. Overdentures were connected to implants by means of ball head abutments and rubber ring. In model 1, the overdenture was retained by two conventional implants; in model 2, by four conventional implants; and in model 3, by five mini implants. The overdenture was subjected to a symmetrical load at an angle of 20 degrees to the overdenture at the canine regions and vertically at the first molars. Four different loading conditions with two total forces (120, 300 N) were considered for the numerical analysis. The overdenture displacement was about 2.2 times higher when five mini implants were used rather than four conventional implants. The lowest stress in bone bed was observed with four conventional implants. Stresses in bone were reduced by 61% in model 2 and by 6% in model 3 in comparison to model 1. The highest stress was observed with five mini implants. Stresses in implants were reduced by 76% in model 2 and 89% increased in model 3 compared to model 1. The highest implant displacement was observed with five mini implants. Implant displacements were reduced by 29% in model 2, and increased by 273% in model 3 compared to model 1. Conventional implants proved better stability for overdenture than mini implants. Regardless the type and number of implants, the stress within the bone and implants are below the critical limits.
Suggested Citation
K. Solberg & F. Heinemann & P. Pellikaan & L. Keilig & H. Stark & C. Bourauel & I. Hasan, 2017.
"Finite element analysis of different loading conditions for implant-supported overdentures supported by conventional or mini implants,"
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 770-782, May.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:20:y:2017:i:7:p:770-782
DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2017.1302432
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:20:y:2017:i:7:p:770-782. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.