Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study

AIM: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: An in vitro perspective MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two mandibular three-dimensiona...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murugaian, Jaisudhaa, Ganesan, Lambodaran, Shankar, M. S. Sathya, Annapoorni, H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8884344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510948
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_203_21
_version_ 1784660140291522560
author Murugaian, Jaisudhaa
Ganesan, Lambodaran
Shankar, M. S. Sathya
Annapoorni, H.
author_facet Murugaian, Jaisudhaa
Ganesan, Lambodaran
Shankar, M. S. Sathya
Annapoorni, H.
author_sort Murugaian, Jaisudhaa
collection PubMed
description AIM: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: An in vitro perspective MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two mandibular three-dimensional Finite Element Models were constructed by the CREO version 5 software, in which Model A depicts a mandible with ALL ON FOUR implant supported prost hesis and Model B will depict TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis. Model A contains four implants, two anterior straight and posterior tilted implants (30°), a bar and denture containing acrylic teeth. In Model B, it contains three straight implants and a prefabricated compensatory bar with standardised dimensions. To evaluate and compare the stress distribution between the bone and implant interface, one deleterious cantilever load of upto 300 N is applied on the second molar bilaterally and simultaneously. Another full bite biting load of 150 N is given bilaterally and simultaneously on the central groove of premolars and molars. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The results of the simulations obtained were analysed in terms of Von Mises equivalent stress levels at the bone -implant interface. RESULTS: The results of loading 1 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress was recorded in the anterior implant region of the Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. The results of loading 2 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress were recorded in the anterior implant region Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. CONCLUSION: This invitro study concludes that All on Four implant supported prosthesis showed better stress distribution when compared to the Trefoil concept.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8884344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88843442023-01-01 A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study Murugaian, Jaisudhaa Ganesan, Lambodaran Shankar, M. S. Sathya Annapoorni, H. J Indian Prosthodont Soc Research AIM: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: An in vitro perspective MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two mandibular three-dimensional Finite Element Models were constructed by the CREO version 5 software, in which Model A depicts a mandible with ALL ON FOUR implant supported prost hesis and Model B will depict TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis. Model A contains four implants, two anterior straight and posterior tilted implants (30°), a bar and denture containing acrylic teeth. In Model B, it contains three straight implants and a prefabricated compensatory bar with standardised dimensions. To evaluate and compare the stress distribution between the bone and implant interface, one deleterious cantilever load of upto 300 N is applied on the second molar bilaterally and simultaneously. Another full bite biting load of 150 N is given bilaterally and simultaneously on the central groove of premolars and molars. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The results of the simulations obtained were analysed in terms of Von Mises equivalent stress levels at the bone -implant interface. RESULTS: The results of loading 1 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress was recorded in the anterior implant region of the Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. The results of loading 2 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress were recorded in the anterior implant region Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. CONCLUSION: This invitro study concludes that All on Four implant supported prosthesis showed better stress distribution when compared to the Trefoil concept. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8884344/ /pubmed/36510948 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_203_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Research
Murugaian, Jaisudhaa
Ganesan, Lambodaran
Shankar, M. S. Sathya
Annapoorni, H.
A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
title A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
title_full A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
title_short A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
title_sort comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an all-on-four implant-supported prosthesis and the trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8884344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510948
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_203_21
work_keys_str_mv AT murugaianjaisudhaa acomparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT ganesanlambodaran acomparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT shankarmssathya acomparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT annapoornih acomparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT murugaianjaisudhaa comparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT ganesanlambodaran comparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT shankarmssathya comparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy
AT annapoornih comparativeevaluationofstressdistributionbetweenanallonfourimplantsupportedprosthesisandthetrefoilimplantsupportedprosthesisathreedimensionalfiniteelementanalysisstudy