Biomechanical comparison of implantation approaches for the treatment of mandibular total edentulism

Applying four anterior implants placed vertically or tilted in the mandible is considered to provide clinically reasonable results in the treatment of mandibular posterior edentulism. It is also reported that a combination of four anterior and two short posterior implants can be an alternative approach for the rehabilitation of severe atrophy cases. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the biomechanical responses of three different implant placement configurations, which represent the clinical options for the treatment of mandibular edentulism. Three-dimensional models of the mandible, prosthetic bar, dental implant, abutment, and screw were created. Finite element models of the three implant configurations (Protocol 1: Four anterior implants, Protocol 2: Four anterior and two short posterior implants, Protocol 3: Two anterior and two tilted posterior implants: All-on-4™ concept) were generated for 10 patients and analyzed under different loading conditions including chewing, biting, and impact forces. Protocol 2 led to the lowest stress concentrations over the mandible among the three protocols (p < 0.016). Protocol 2 resulted in significantly lower stresses than Protocol 3 and Protocol 1 over prosthetic bars under chewing forces (p < 0.016). None of the implant placement protocols consistently exhibited the lowest stress distribution over abutments. The lowest stresses over dental implants under the chewing, biting, and impact forces were obtained in Protocol 1, Protocol 2, and Protocol 3, respectively (p < 0.016). Protocol 3 was the best option to obtain the lowest stress values over the screws under all types of loading conditions (p < 0.016). In conclusion, Protocol 2 was biomechanically more ideal than Protocol 1 and Protocol 3 to manage the posterior edentulism.

A REVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT APPLICATIONS IN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL BIOMECHANICS

Finite element method (FEM) is preferred to carry out mechanical analyses for many complex biomechanical structures. For most of the biomechanical models such as oral and maxillofacial structures or patient-specific dental instruments, including nonlinearities, complicated geometries, complex material properties, or loading/boundary conditions, it is not possible to accomplish an analytical solution. The FEM is the most widely used numerical approach for such cases and found a wide range of application fields for investigating the biomechanical characteristics of oral and maxillofacial structures that are exposed to external forces or torques. The numerical results such as stress or strain distributions obtained from finite element analysis (FEA) enable dental researchers to evaluate the bone tissues subjected to the implant or prosthesis fixation from the viewpoint of (i) mechanical strength, (ii) material properties, (iii) geometry and dimensions, (iv) structural properties, (v) loading or boundary conditions, and (vi) quantity of implants or prostheses. This review paper evaluates the process of the FEA of the oral and maxillofacial structures step by step as followings: (i) a general perspective on the techniques for creating oral and maxillofacial models, (ii) definitions of material properties assigned to oral and maxillofacial tissues and related dental materials, (iii) definitions of contact types between tissue and dental instruments, (iv) details on loading and boundary conditions, and (v) meshing process.