Cargando…
Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible
Two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with magnetic attachments can provide an effective treatment modality for edentulous patients. In this study, a three-dimensional finite element analysis was used to compare the biomechanical characteristics of three different types of magnetic attachment...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476138/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31089390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/6839517 |
_version_ | 1783412854871818240 |
---|---|
author | Hu, Fengling Gong, Yiming Bian, Zhen Zhang, Xiaoying Xu, Bin Zhang, Jianguo Shi, Xiaojun Yu, Youcheng Song, Liang |
author_facet | Hu, Fengling Gong, Yiming Bian, Zhen Zhang, Xiaoying Xu, Bin Zhang, Jianguo Shi, Xiaojun Yu, Youcheng Song, Liang |
author_sort | Hu, Fengling |
collection | PubMed |
description | Two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with magnetic attachments can provide an effective treatment modality for edentulous patients. In this study, a three-dimensional finite element analysis was used to compare the biomechanical characteristics of three different types of magnetic attachments in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Flat-type, dome-type, and cushion-type of the magnetic attachments were designed to retain the overdenture. Four types of load were applied to the overdenture in each model: 100 N vertical and oblique loads on the right first molar and a 100 N vertical load on the right canine and the lower incisors. The biomechanical behaviors of peri-implant bone, abutment, and mucosa were recorded. In vertical incisors, vertical right canine, and oblique molar loading condition, the flat-type group exhibited the highest levels of maximum equivalent strain/stress in the peri-implant bone. The total deformation of mucosa and the maximum equivalent strain/stress in the oblique molar loading condition are about two times as the vertical molar loading condition. These results suggested that both cushion-type and dome-type of the magnetic attachments are better choices in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, and oblique loading is more harmful than vertical loading. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6476138 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64761382019-05-14 Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible Hu, Fengling Gong, Yiming Bian, Zhen Zhang, Xiaoying Xu, Bin Zhang, Jianguo Shi, Xiaojun Yu, Youcheng Song, Liang Comput Math Methods Med Research Article Two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with magnetic attachments can provide an effective treatment modality for edentulous patients. In this study, a three-dimensional finite element analysis was used to compare the biomechanical characteristics of three different types of magnetic attachments in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Flat-type, dome-type, and cushion-type of the magnetic attachments were designed to retain the overdenture. Four types of load were applied to the overdenture in each model: 100 N vertical and oblique loads on the right first molar and a 100 N vertical load on the right canine and the lower incisors. The biomechanical behaviors of peri-implant bone, abutment, and mucosa were recorded. In vertical incisors, vertical right canine, and oblique molar loading condition, the flat-type group exhibited the highest levels of maximum equivalent strain/stress in the peri-implant bone. The total deformation of mucosa and the maximum equivalent strain/stress in the oblique molar loading condition are about two times as the vertical molar loading condition. These results suggested that both cushion-type and dome-type of the magnetic attachments are better choices in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, and oblique loading is more harmful than vertical loading. Hindawi 2019-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6476138/ /pubmed/31089390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/6839517 Text en Copyright © 2019 Fengling Hu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hu, Fengling Gong, Yiming Bian, Zhen Zhang, Xiaoying Xu, Bin Zhang, Jianguo Shi, Xiaojun Yu, Youcheng Song, Liang Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible |
title | Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible |
title_full | Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible |
title_short | Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible |
title_sort | comparison of three different types of two-implant-supported magnetic attachments on the stress distribution in edentulous mandible |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476138/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31089390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/6839517 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hufengling comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT gongyiming comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT bianzhen comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT zhangxiaoying comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT xubin comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT zhangjianguo comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT shixiaojun comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT yuyoucheng comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible AT songliang comparisonofthreedifferenttypesoftwoimplantsupportedmagneticattachmentsonthestressdistributioninedentulousmandible |