| Literature DB >> 20712443 |
Fariborz Vafaei1, Masoumeh Khoshhal, Saeed Bayat-Movahed, Ahmad Hassan Ahangary, Farnaz Firooz, Alireza Izady, Vahid Rakhshan.
Abstract
Implant-retained mandibular ball-supported and bar-supported overlay dentures are the two most common treatment options for the edentulous mandible. The superior option in terms of strain distribution should be determined. The three-dimensional model of mandible (based on computerized tomography scan) and its overlying implant-retained bar-supported and ball-supported overlay dentures were simulated using SolidWorks, NURBS, and ANSYS Workbench. Loads A (60 N) and B (60 N) were exerted, respectively, in protrusive and laterotrusive motions, on second molar mesial, first molar mesial, and first premolar. The strain distribution patterns were assessed on (1) implant tissue, (2) first implant-bone, and (3) second implant-bone interfaces. Protrusive: Strain was mostly detected in the apical of the fixtures and least in the cervical when bar design was used. On the nonworking side, however, strain was higher in the cervical and lower in the apical compared with the working side implant. Laterotrusive: The strain values were closely similar in the two designs. It seems that both designs are acceptable in terms of stress distribution, although a superior pattern is associated with the application of bar design in protrusive motion.Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20712443 DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Implantol ISSN: 0160-6972 Impact factor: 1.779