João Paulo Mendes Tribst1, Vinícius Anéas Rodrigues1, Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges2, Dimas Rennó de Lima3, Renato Sussumu Nishioka4. 1. PhD student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Univ. Estadual Paulista-UNESP-Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos/SP, Brasil. 2. Adjunct Professor, Department of Dental Material and Prosthodontics, Univ. Estadual Paulista-UNESP-Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos/SP, Brasil. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Material and Prosthodontics, Univ. Estadual Paulista-UNESP-Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos/SP, Brasil. 4. Titular Professor, Department of Dental Material and Prosthodontics, Univ. Estadual Paulista-UNESP-Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos/SP, Brasil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the stress and strain generated in a fixed four-element prosthesis under the application of axial and nonaxial loads using a simplified implant-supported fixed prosthesis model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-dimensional model was constructed containing 3 implants with a conventional anatomical prosthesis (G1). The second model with the same implant system received the simplified prosthesis (G2). A load of 300 N was applied at an axial point and a nonaxial point through finite element analysis software. RESULTS: The G2 group showed different values of stress concentration in the prosthesis, fixation screw, retention screw, and abutments when compared with G1. Within a limit of 10% degrees of acceptability, the stress on the implants and the bone strain were enclosed for both models of prostheses. CONCLUSION: The simplified fixed prosthesis evaluated presents biomechanical behavior similar to an anatomical prosthesis in the implants and in the surrounding bone structure.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the stress and strain generated in a fixed four-element prosthesis under the application of axial and nonaxial loads using a simplified implant-supported fixed prosthesis model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-dimensional model was constructed containing 3 implants with a conventional anatomical prosthesis (G1). The second model with the same implant system received the simplified prosthesis (G2). A load of 300 N was applied at an axial point and a nonaxial point through finite element analysis software. RESULTS: The G2 group showed different values of stress concentration in the prosthesis, fixation screw, retention screw, and abutments when compared with G1. Within a limit of 10% degrees of acceptability, the stress on the implants and the bone strain were enclosed for both models of prostheses. CONCLUSION: The simplified fixed prosthesis evaluated presents biomechanical behavior similar to an anatomical prosthesis in the implants and in the surrounding bone structure.
Authors: João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva; Roberto Lo Giudice; Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges; Marco Antonio Bottino; Ettore Epifania; Pietro Ausiello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva; Dimas Renno de Lima; Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges; Marco Antonio Bottino Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol Date: 2018 Jul-Aug