Ibrahim CRM, Sameh A, Askar O. A finite element analysis study on different angle correction designs for inclined implants in All-On-Four protocol.
BMC Oral Health 2024;
24:331. [PMID:
38481220 PMCID:
PMC10938696 DOI:
10.1186/s12903-024-04091-2]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2024] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to investigate, through finite element analysis (FEA), the biomechanical behavior of the built-in angle corrected dental implant versus implant with angled multiunit abutment used in All-On-Four treatment protocol.
METHODS
Two (3D) finite element models of a simplified edentulous mandible were constructed with two different posterior implant designs based on the All-On-Four protocol. Four implants were placed in each model, the two anterior implants were positioned vertically at the lateral incisor/canine sites. Depending on the implant fixture design in posterior area, there are two models created; Model I; the mandible was rehabilitated with four co-axis (4 mm in diameter × 15 mm in length) implants with distally built-in angle corrected implants (24-degree angle correction) .While Model II, the mandible was rehabilitated with four conventional (4 mm in diameter × 14 mm in length) implants with a distally inclined posterior implants (25 degree) and angled multiunit abutments. CAD software (Solidworks© 2017; Dassault Systems Solidworks Corp) was used to model the desired geometry. Axial and inclined Loads were applied on the two models. A Finite element analysis study was done using an efficient software ANSYS© with specified materials. The resultant equivalent Von-Misses stresses (VMS), maximum principal stresses and deformation analysis were calculated for each part (implants and prosthetic components).
RESULTS
When applying axial and non-axial forces, model II (angled multiunit model) showed higher deformation on the level of Ti mesh about 13.286 μm and higher VMS 246.68 MPa than model I (angle corrected implant). Model I exhibited higher maximum stresses 107.83 MPa than Model II 94.988 MPa but the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitation of the FEA study, although angle correcting implant design is showing higher values in maximum principle stresses compared with angled multiunit abutments, model deformation and resultant VMS increased with angled multiunit abutments. The angle correcting designs at implant level have more promising results in terms of deformation and VMS distribution than angle correction at abutment level.
Collapse