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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hu, Fengling, Gong, Yiming, Bian, Zhen, Zhang, Xiaoying, Xu, Bin, Zhang, Jianguo, Shi, Xiaojun, Yu, Youcheng, Song, Liang
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