BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the mechanical response of a removable partial denture (RPD) in Kennedy Class II according to being associated or not with implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four RPDs were manufactured for a Kennedy Class II: CRPD - Conventional RPD, RPD+1M, RPD+2M and RPD+12M, respectively, signifying implant assisted RPDs with the implant installed in the first molar, second molar, and in the first and second molars. The finite element method was used to determine the most damaged support tooth under compressive load (300N, 10s) and strain gauge analysis was used to evaluate the microstrain. All groups were submitted to a retentive force analysis (0.5 mm/mm, 100kgf). Microstrain and retentive force data were submitted to One-way ANOVA and the Tukey test, all with α=5%. RESULTS: High microstrain was observed in the second premolar adjacent to the edentulous space under compression load (p< 0.01). RPD+12M presented lower microstrain, however being similar to RPD+2M. RPD+1M presented a higher mean value of retentive force, but similar to RPD+12M. FEM showed RPD assisted by implants concentrates less stress in the periodontal ligament. The association of two implants was sufficient to decrease the stress generated in the implants. The most stressed region for the o-ring abutment was the threads, and the group with two implants showed the lowest stress concentration. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of Kennedy Class II, the association of RPD with implants in the molar region is a favorable option for patient rehabilitation, reducing the movement of the direct retainer adjacent to the edentulous space, increasing the removal force and decreasing the stress magnitude in the periodontal ligament. Key words:Removable partial denture, Finite element analysis, Prosthetic dentistry, Implant-assisted RPD, Distal extension RPD considerations. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the mechanical response of a removable partial denture (RPD) in Kennedy Class II according to being associated or not with implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four RPDs were manufactured for a Kennedy Class II: CRPD - Conventional RPD, RPD+1M, RPD+2M and RPD+12M, respectively, signifying implant assisted RPDs with the implant installed in the first molar, second molar, and in the first and second molars. The finite element method was used to determine the most damaged support tooth under compressive load (300N, 10s) and strain gauge analysis was used to evaluate the microstrain. All groups were submitted to a retentive force analysis (0.5 mm/mm, 100kgf). Microstrain and retentive force data were submitted to One-way ANOVA and the Tukey test, all with α=5%. RESULTS: High microstrain was observed in the second premolar adjacent to the edentulous space under compression load (p< 0.01). RPD+12M presented lower microstrain, however being similar to RPD+2M. RPD+1M presented a higher mean value of retentive force, but similar to RPD+12M. FEM showed RPD assisted by implants concentrates less stress in the periodontal ligament. The association of two implants was sufficient to decrease the stress generated in the implants. The most stressed region for the o-ring abutment was the threads, and the group with two implants showed the lowest stress concentration. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of Kennedy Class II, the association of RPD with implants in the molar region is a favorable option for patient rehabilitation, reducing the movement of the direct retainer adjacent to the edentulous space, increasing the removal force and decreasing the stress magnitude in the periodontal ligament. Key words:Removable partial denture, Finite element analysis, Prosthetic dentistry, Implant-assisted RPD, Distal extension RPD considerations. Copyright:
Authors: Antonio Braulino de Melo Filho; João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Nathália de Carvalho Ramos; Julio Nogueira Luz; Maria Aparecida Neves Jardini; Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges; Mauro Pedrine Santamaria; Renata Marques de Melo Journal: Braz Dent J Date: 2019-04-04
Authors: R F C P de Freitas; K de Carvalho Dias; A da Fonte Porto Carreiro; G A S Barbosa; M A F Ferreira Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 3.837