Effect of cantilever length on stress distribution around implants in mandibular overdentures supported by two and three implants

ABSTRACT

Objective: There is no definitive study comparing stress distribution around two versus three implants in implant-retained overdentures with different cantilever length. The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate stress pattern around the implants of the 2 or 3 implant-supported mandibular overdenture with different cantilevered length. Materials and Methods: The models used in this study were 2 and 3 implant-supported overdenture with bar and clip attachment system on an edentulous mandibular arch. Each model was modified according to cantilever length (0 mm, 7 mm, and 13 mm); thus, 6 models were obtained. The vertical load of 15 and 30 pounds were applied unilaterally to the first molar and 15 pounds to the first premolar, and the stress in bone was analyzed. Results: With increasing cantilever length, no similar stress pattern changes were observed in different areas, but in most instances, an increase in cantilever length did not increase the stress around the implant adjacent to cantilever. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that increasing of cantilever length in mandibular overdentures retained by 2–3 implants did not cause distinct increasing in stress, especially around the implant adjacent to cantilever, it may be helpful to use cantilever in cases of mandibular overdenture supported by splinted implants with insufficient retention and stability. Based on the findings of this study, optimal cantilever length in mandibular overdenture cannot be determined.

Key words:

Cantilever - finite element analysis - overdenture - stress

• REFERENCES

• 1 Hussein MO. Stress-strain distribution at bone-implant interface of two splinted overdenture systems using 3D finite element analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2013; 5: 333-40
• 2 Ebadian B, Farzin M, Talebi S, Khodaeian N. Evaluation of stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular overdenture with different vertical restorative spaces: A finite element analysis. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: 741-7
• 3 Celik G, Uludag B. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 229-35
• 4 Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2005
• 5 Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, Mo Z, Fan Y, Feng H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent 2013; 41: 241-9
• 6 Ochiai KT, Williams BH, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA. Photoelastic analysis of the effect of palatal support on various implant-supported overdenture designs. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 421-7
• 7 Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, Pouya MA, Mahmood F. The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: A finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 311-8
• 8 McCartney JW. Cantilever rests: An alternative to the unsupported distal cantilever of osseointegrated implant-supported prostheses for the edentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 817-9
• 9 Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11 (Suppl. 01) 108-25
• 10 Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Stress transfer of four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever designs. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 328-36
• 11 Semper W, Heberer S, Nelson K. Retrospective analysis of bar-retained dentures with cantilever extension: Marginal bone level changes around dental implants over time. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 385-93
• 12 Elsyad MA, Al-Mahdy YF, Salloum MG, Elsaih EA. The effect of cantilevered bar length on strain around two implants supporting a mandibular overdenture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: e143-50
• 13 White SN, Caputo AA, Anderkvist T. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 493-9
• 14 Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 59-63
• 15 Greco GD, Jansen WC, Landre JuniorJ, Seraidarian PI. Stress analysis on the free-end distal extension of an implant-supported mandibular complete denture. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23: 182-9
• 16 Eskitascioglu G, Usumez A, Sevimay M, Soykan E, Unsal E. The influence of occlusal loading location on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 144-50
• 17 Bidez MW, McLoughlin SW, Chen Y, English CE. Finite element analysis of two-abutment hader bar designs. Implant Dent 1993; 2: 107-14
• 18 Watson RM, Davis DM, Forman GH, Coward T. Considerations in design and fabrication of maxillary implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4: 232-9
• 19 McAlarney ME, Stavropoulos DN. Theoretical cantilever lengths versus clinical variables in fifty-five clinical cases. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 332-43
• 20 Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 327-34
• 21 Ebadian B, Mosharraf R, Khodaeian N. Finite element analysis of the influence of implant inclination on stress distribution in mandibular overdentures. J Oral Implantol 2015; 41: 252-7
• 22 Manda M, Galanis C, Georgiopoulos V, Provatidis C, Koidis P. Effect of severely reduced bone support on the stress field developed within the connectors of three types of cross-arch fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 101: 54-65
• 23 Zampelis A, Rangert B, Heijl L. Tilting of splinted implants for improved prosthodontic support: A two-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97 (06) Suppl S35-43
• 24 Greco GD, Jansen WC, Landre JuniorJ, Seraidarian PI. Biomechanical analysis of the stresses generated by different disocclusion patterns in an implant-supported mandibular complete denture. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 515-20
• 25 Maeda Y, Wood WW. Finite element method simulation of bone resorption beneath a complete denture. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 1370-3
• 26 Haraldson T, Jemt T, Stålblad PA, Lekholm U. Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Scand J Dent Res 1988; 96: 235-42
• 27 Mericske-Stern R. Force distribution on implants supporting overdentures: The effect of distal bar extensions. A 3-D in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 142-51
• 28 Kenney R, Richards MW. Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 559-64
• 29 Batenburg RH, Raghoebar GM, Van Oort RP, Heijdenrijk K, Boering G. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosteal implants. A prospective, comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 27: 435-9
• 30 Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. A three-dimensional finite element study on two versus four implants in an edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 271-9
• 31 Guven S, Beydemir K, Dundar S, Eratilla V. Evaluation of stress distributions in peri-implant and periodontal bone tissues in 3- and 5-unit tooth and implant-supported fixed zirconia restorations by finite elements analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 329-39
• 32 Ben-Ur Z, Gorfil C, Shifman A. Anterior implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 1996; 27: 603-6
• 33 Federick DR, Caputo AA. Effects of overdenture retention designs and implant orientations on load transfer characteristics. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 624-32
• 34 Moreira W, Hermann C, Pereira JT, Balbinoti JA, Tiossi R. A three-dimensional finite element study on the stress distribution pattern of two prosthetic abutments for external hexagon implants. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 484-91
• 35 Eraslan O, Inan O, Secilmis A. The effect of framework design on stress distribution in implant-supported FPDs: A 3-D FEM study. Eur J Dent 2010; 4: 374-82