STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The benefits and limitations of jaw treatments with tilted versus vertical implants, as well as prosthesis design with and without posterior cantilevers, have been extensively discussed. However, biomechanical advantages associated with cantilevers in fixed dentures (FDs) and tilted implants in the maxillae are less well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze, via 3-dimensional (3-D) finite element analysis, stresses transmitted to tilted versus vertical implants and the surrounding periimplant bone in the maxillae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3-D edentulous maxillary model was created using customized computer software (FEMAP 8.3). Four implants were virtually placed in the premaxilla and splinted with an FD. Keeping the prosthesis length constant, 4 different configurations were evaluated with the distal implants inclined 0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees; cantilever extensions were 13, 9, 5, and 0 mm, respectively. A vertical load (150 N) was applied to the distal portion of the posterior cantilevers. Von Mises' stress values transmitted to periimplant bone and at the metal framework of FDs on implants were evaluated in cancellous and cortical bone. RESULTS: The maximum stresses recorded in periimplant bone for the vertical implants were 75.0 MPa (distal implants), 35.0 MPa (mesial implants), and 95.0 MPa for the metal frameworks. Tilted distal implants, with consequent reduction of the posterior cantilevers, resulted in decreased stress values for all of the variables: -12.9%, -18.3%, and -11.5% for the 15-degree configuration; -47.5%, -52.6%, and -31.3% for the 30-degree configuration; and -73.5%, -77.7%, and -85.6% for the 45-degree configuration CONCLUSIONS: Finite element analysis data regarding rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae revealed that tilted distal implants, rigidly splinted with an FD, decrease stress in the periimplant bone and frameworks. This treatment modality seems to be a valid therapeutic alternative to conventional maxillary fixed complete prostheses supported by vertical dental implants with posterior cantilevers. Copyright Â
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The benefits and limitations of jaw treatments with tilted versus vertical implants, as well as prosthesis design with and without posterior cantilevers, have been extensively discussed. However, biomechanical advantages associated with cantilevers in fixed dentures (FDs) and tilted implants in the maxillae are less well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze, via 3-dimensional (3-D) finite element analysis, stresses transmitted to tilted versus vertical implants and the surrounding periimplant bone in the maxillae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3-D edentulous maxillary model was created using customized computer software (FEMAP 8.3). Four implants were virtually placed in the premaxilla and splinted with an FD. Keeping the prosthesis length constant, 4 different configurations were evaluated with the distal implants inclined 0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees; cantilever extensions were 13, 9, 5, and 0 mm, respectively. A vertical load (150 N) was applied to the distal portion of the posterior cantilevers. Von Mises' stress values transmitted to periimplant bone and at the metal framework of FDs on implants were evaluated in cancellous and cortical bone. RESULTS: The maximum stresses recorded in periimplant bone for the vertical implants were 75.0 MPa (distal implants), 35.0 MPa (mesial implants), and 95.0 MPa for the metal frameworks. Tilted distal implants, with consequent reduction of the posterior cantilevers, resulted in decreased stress values for all of the variables: -12.9%, -18.3%, and -11.5% for the 15-degree configuration; -47.5%, -52.6%, and -31.3% for the 30-degree configuration; and -73.5%, -77.7%, and -85.6% for the 45-degree configuration CONCLUSIONS: Finite element analysis data regarding rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae revealed that tilted distal implants, rigidly splinted with an FD, decrease stress in the periimplant bone and frameworks. This treatment modality seems to be a valid therapeutic alternative to conventional maxillary fixed complete prostheses supported by vertical dental implants with posterior cantilevers. Copyright Â
Authors: Douglas R Monteiro; Emily V F Silva; Eduardo P Pellizzer; Osvaldo Magro Filho; Marcelo C Goiato Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Marcelo Coelho Goiato; Mariana Vilela Sônego; Emily Vivianne Freitas da Silva; Stefan Fiuza de Carvalho Dekon; Rodrigo Antonio de Medeiros; Karina Helga Turcio de Carvalho; Daniela Micheline Dos Santos Journal: Int J Surg Case Rep Date: 2015-01-10
Authors: Francesco Ferrini; Paolo Capparé; Raffaele Vinci; Enrico F Gherlone; Gianpaolo Sannino Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-11-11 Impact factor: 3.411