• Users Online: 196
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 353-361

Correlation between abutment angulation and off-axial stresses on biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconium implants in the anterior maxilla: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study


Department of Prosthodontics, Mamata Dental College, Khammam, Telangana, India

Date of Submission27-Jul-2019
Date of Decision29-Aug-2019
Date of Acceptance21-Sep-2019
Date of Web Publication10-Oct-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Harilal Guguloth
Department of Prosthodontics, Mamata Dental College, Khammam, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_268_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the stress distribution around the titanium and zirconium implant with different abutment angulations in the anterior maxilla to off-axial load.
Setting and Design: In vitro – Comparative study.
Materials and Methods: Two models of titanium and zirconium implants (4 mm × 13 mm) and abutment with at 0°, 15°, 25° angulations were modeled to replace missing right central incisor using three-dimensional finite element analysis. A bite force of 178 N was applied on the lingual fossa of crowns at an angle of 120° off-axial to the long axis of implant.
Statistical Analysis Used: Nil.
Results: Von Misses stresses observed are as follows: (1) at the implant–bone interface Ti 0 (8.31 MPa), Zr 0 (8.57 MPa), Ti 15 (83.59 MPa), Zr 15 (98.07 MPa), Ti 25 (197.8 MPa), and Zr 25 (265.77 MPa); (2) at the implant–abutment interface Ti 0 (5.90 MPa), Zr 0 (6.45 MPa), Ti 15 (19.13 MPa), Zr 15 (19.32 MPa), Ti 25 (38.65 MPa), and Zr 25 (38.26 MPa); and (3) within superstructure Ti 0 (3.11 MPa), Zr 0 (5.02 MPa), Ti 15 (6.17 MPa), Zr 15 (5.02 MPa), Ti 25 (8.15 MPa), and Zr 25 (6.131 Mpa).
Conclusion: Stress behavior of titanium and zirconium implant with tested abutment angulation at implant–abutment interface and within the superstructure was similar, except at implant–bone interface.

Keywords: Anterior maxilla, dental implant, esthetics, implant abutments, stress, titanium, zirconium


How to cite this article:
Guguloth H, Duggineni CR, Chitturi RK, Sujesh M, Ravvali T, Amiti RR. Correlation between abutment angulation and off-axial stresses on biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconium implants in the anterior maxilla: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19:353-61

How to cite this URL:
Guguloth H, Duggineni CR, Chitturi RK, Sujesh M, Ravvali T, Amiti RR. Correlation between abutment angulation and off-axial stresses on biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconium implants in the anterior maxilla: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 12];19:353-61. Available from: http://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2019/19/4/353/268770




  Introduction Top


Dental implants are most commonly used for rehabilitation of the partially or completely edentulous situations.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] In the esthetically demanding anterior maxillary regions, restoring missing tooth with an implant-supported crown is a major challenge to a clinician as loss of teeth in this region results in resorption of alveolar bone from the labial aspect, leaving a palatally positioned alveolar ridge which compromises positioning of implant and final esthetic outcome of prosthesis.[6],[7] Dental implants made up of commercially pure titanium are commonly used because of its well-documented biocompatibility and mechanical proprieties. Although the various modifications in the fabrication and design of metal abutments were made, there is still disadvantage of metallic components showing through when such abutments are used. To improve the dental and gingival esthetics, various newer ceramic materials were used for fabrication of implants and abutments. Zirconium dioxide has been used recently for implants and abutments because of its mechanical and esthetic properties as zirconia is radiopaque and clearly visible on radiographs and its ivory color is similar to that of natural tooth, rendering it extremely useful in esthetically critical areas of the mouth. Biocompatibility of zirconia as a dental implant has been determined by several investigations, but the behavior upon loading is unclear.[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] Pre or customized angled abutments are often necessary to compensate for such situations, rather than straight abutments with different angulations.[13] The direction of force and biomechanical factors plays a major role in the success of implant treatment. An off-axial force most common during normal mastication would appear to induce more stress than does axial force. Moreover, the placement of dental implants would be more likely to produce an unfavorable off-axis load in the case of several palatal resorption of the alveolar ridge, following tooth extraction than in the case of a ridge without resorption.[14] Numerous studies have been conducted about the behavior of implants to the stresses; fewer such studies have been related to the premaxillary region. In cases where esthetics requires tooth overlap in the anterior region, off-axis loading of the implant is usually unavoidable.[14] The bone quality in the premaxillary region is also typical not as good as that in the mandible. The application of load on crown or implant results in the production of different bending moments; therefore, a more detailed premaxillary finite element analysis (FEA) model with an implant and superstructure is necessary. However, there is a correlation between the abutment angulation and off-axial stresses on biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconium implants in the anterior maxilla. Earlier studies were attempted to analyze stresses in the cortical bone and cancellous bone surrounding implant site. None of the attempts were made to analyze stresses at implant–bone interface, implant–abutment interface, and within the superstructure. Hence, this study was conducted to analyze the correlation between abutment angulation and off-axial stresses on biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconium implants.[5],[9],[11],[12],[13],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] The purpose of the present study is (1) to evaluate the stress distribution around the titanium implant with porcelain fused to titanium superstructure at implant–bone interface, implant–abutment interface, and within superstructure and zirconium implant with zirconia superstructure at implant–bone interface, implant–abutment interface, and within the superstructure and (2) to compare stresses of titanium and zirconium implant at implant–bone interface, within superstructure, and at implant–abutment interface with 0°, 15°, and 25° abutment angulations.


  Materials and Methods Top


The study was approved by institutional review board, ref no.: MDC_T_D128805001. A model of a maxillary anterior segment to replace missing right central incisor region featuring an implant and its superstructure was constructed using computer-aided design software (Catia Version 5, Dassault System, France) [Figure 1]. Anterior maxillary D3 bone (Type III) was modeled using computed tomographic images of the human maxilla. A simulated two models of titanium and zirconium implant (4 mm × 13 mm) with 0°, 15°, and 25° abutment angulations were used for this study. Titanium and zirconium implants with their superstructure were placed into the right central incisor region with 0°, 15°, and 25° abutment angulations. Thus, the maxillary bone was assumed to be isotropic, homogenous, and linearly elastic Type III bone, i.e., 2 mm cortical bone surrounding the cancellous bone. The section of bone was traced on a graph paper, and X and Y coordinates of the contouring points were joined to form partial volumes of both cortical and cancellous bones. Later, these sections were extended mesially and distally in Z plane to construct geometric model of bone at every node [Figure 2]. These planes acted as supports to the model. The supporting planes had to be located far from the areas where stress was to be analyzed to avoid influencing the analysis.
Figure 1: Graphic representation of model with fixture

Click here to view
Figure 2: Graphic representation of model with superstructure

Click here to view


Material properties, elements, and nodes

[Table 1] depicts the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of the bone (Type III cortical and cancellous bone) titanium and zirconium implants with their superstructures, and [Table 2] depicts the number of nodes and elements [Figure 3] used in this study.
Table 1: Material properties of bone, titanium, and zirconium implant along with abutments, superstructures and luting agent (glass ionomer cement)

Click here to view
Table 2: Total number of elements and nodes present at the 0°, 15°, and 25° angulated models of titanium and zirconium implants

Click here to view
Figure 3: Three-dimensional model denotes elements and nodes

Click here to view


Interface conditions

The bone–implant interface was assumed to be perfect, simulating complete osseointegration, and the implant, screw-retained abutment with 0°, 15°, and 25° angulations, and crowns were assumed to be connected as a single unit [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Graphic representation completed three-dimensional model

Click here to view


Loading and boundary conditions

The three-dimensional (3-D) mesh structure was accomplished with the creation of a solid 3-D model using ANSYS software 14.5 (computer software, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, United States). To create the solid models, tetrahedral solid elements were prepared. A 178 N of load was applied on the lingual fossa of crowns with 0°, 15°, and 25° abutment angulation which was 120° angle to the long axis of the implant. The present study was conducted to evaluate the stress distribution around the titanium and zirconium implant at the implant–bone interface, at the implant–abutment interface, and within the superstructure with 0°, 15°, and 25° abutment angulations.


  Results Top


Angulations had influenced stress behavior of titanium and zirconium implants to off-axial load. In the present study, Von Misses stresses observed were as follows: (1) at the implant–bone interface of titanium and zirconium implant models with 0°, 15°, and 25° abutment angulation Ti 0° (8.31 MPa) [Figure 5], Zr 0° (8.57 MPa) [Figure 5], Ti 15° (83.59 MPa) [Figure 6], Zr 15° (98.07 MPa) [Figure 6], Ti 25° (197.8 MPa) [Figure 7], and Zr 25° (265.77 MPa) [Figure 7]; (2) at the implant–abutment interface Ti 0° (5.90 MPa) [Figure 5], Zr 0° (6.45 MPa) [Figure 5], Ti 15° (19.13 MPa) [Figure 6], Zr 15° (19.32 MPa) [Figure 6], Ti 25° (38.65 MPa) [Figure 7], and Zr 25° (38.26 MPa) [Figure 7]; and (3) within superstructure Ti 0° (3.11 MPa), Zr 0° (5.02 MPa) [Figure 5], Ti 15° (6.17 MPa), Zr 15° (5.02 MPa) [Figure 6], Ti 25° (8.15 MPa), and Zr 25° (6.131 MPa) [Figure 7]. Upon comparison, observed stress values of titanium and zirconium implants with 0° abutment angulation at [Table 3] implant–bone interface, implant–abutment interface, and within the superstructure were identical. In case of 15° and 25° [Table 3], similar stresses were found at implant–abutment interface and within the superstructure, but the highest stress was noted at the neck of the zirconium implant (98.073 MPa) when compared to the titanium implant (83.59 MPa) with 15° abutment angulation while the peak stress was noted near to the neck region of the zirconium implant (265.77 MPa) when compared to the titanium implant (197.811 MPa).
Figure 5: Stress behaviour of titanium and zirconium implants with zero degree abutment angulation at implant bone interface, implant abutment interface and within the superstructure

Click here to view
Figure 6: Stress behaviour of titanium and zirconium implants with 15 degree abutment angulation at implant bone interface, implant abutment interface and within the superstructure

Click here to view
Figure 7: Stress behaviour of titanium and zirconium implants with 25 degree abutment angulation at implant bone interface, implant abutment interface and within the superstructure

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison between model Ti-0 (titanium implant) “0°”, 15°, 25° and model Zr-0 (zirconium implant) “0°”, 15°, and 25° abutment angulations

Click here to view


As this is a single-sample study, no statistical analysis can be performed; further study with increase in the sample size is required to establish its hypothesis.


  Discussion Top


Osseointegration is a well-documented phenomenon, and dental implants have proved to be predictable treatment option. The success or failure of a dental implant determined by the influence of stress distribution around the implant and surrounding bone.[21],[22],[23] However, the implant-supported restoration in the anterior segment must feature a natural appearance and a high degree of customization required. For this study, zirconia implants and abutments are used because of its mechanical and esthetic properties. More so, zirconia is preferred over titanium for its shade-matching ability in esthetic zones. Many studies were conducted in the past comparing these two materials for their property of stress distribution to axial loads in the various regions of maxilla and mandible.[12],[15] Biomechanical behaviour of implant restorations in the completely edentulous situation found to be more favorable when compared to restoration in the partially edentulous situation as implants can be placed at ease, wherein with partially edentulous situations implant positioning is to be straighter especially in the anterior region affecting the functional and esthetic outcomes.[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] In the esthetically demanding maxillary anterior regions, restoring a single missing tooth with an implant-supported crown is a major challenge to the clinician, as loss of teeth in the anterior maxilla results in resorption of alveolar bone from labial aspect, leaving a palatally positioned alveolar ridge.[29] This can adversely affect implant positioning and compromise the final esthetic result of the restoration; McCarthy et al. have suggested bone augmentation as a viable alternative, yet its main disadvantage is that extensive surgical procedures are involved.[29]

Above said problems with implant supported restoration in the anterior maxillary region can be nullified by usage of angulated abutments as suggested by Clelland et al.[13] and zirconium as a choice of material for implant and abutment from studies of Caglar et al.[12]

Occlusal force applied on implant-supported prosthesis in areas of compromised bone may result in the development of an unfavorable off-axis load. An off-axis force could induce a bending moment and thus exert stress gradients within the implant as well as the adjacent bone than the axial.[14] So far, axial as well as off-axial forces on zirconium implant have been investigated, and not many studies were performed on zirconium implant with varying abutment angulation supporting zirconium superstructure. Different methods have been used to study the stress/strains in bone and dental implants. For example, photoelasticity provides good qualitative information pertaining to the overall location of stresses but only at the specific location of stresses but only limited quantitative information. Strain gauge measurements provide accurate data regarding strains only at the specific location of the gauge. FEA is capable of providing detailed quantitative data at any location within a mathematical model. Assumptions imposed on the FEA models (e.g., regarding model geometry, load magnitude, load direction, and material properties) influence the relative accuracy of the FEA. The use of a fine mesh is also a major factor in the achievement of an accurate model in FEA.[14]

The ideal method of testing the stress distribution is 3-D FEA. 3-D models were created using 3-D FEA, and it simulates the behavior of 3-D structures as realistically as 3-D models.[30],[31]

This study used 3-D FEA to evaluate the influence of off-axial stresses on biomechanical behaviors of titanium and zirconium implants with varying abutment angulation (0°, 15°, 25°) in the anterior maxilla to replace the maxillary right central incisor.

In the present study, a maxillary model with missing right central incisor was developed as suggested by Kao et al.[16] Titanium implant, titanium abutment, porcelain fused to metal (PFM) as a superstructure and zirconium implant, zirconium abutment, and zirconia as a superstructure were luted with glass ionomer cement with 0°, 15° and 25°, respectively. Stress distribution between the titanium implant and zirconium implant with various abutment angulations was compared, by applying a bite force of 178 N on the lingual fossa of crown, with 120° angle to the long axis of the implant using 3-D FEA, and the finite element modeled was created using ANSYS 14.5 software.

The cortical with interposed trabecular bone is considered isotropic, homogenous, linearly elastic body; the cortical layer is taken as 2 mm thick surrounding the cancellous bone and assumed as Type III of bone. The maxilla was approximately 11 mm in width buccoligually, 16 mm in height inferosuperiorly, and 6.5 mm in width mesiodistally for each implant under study. While Young's modulus of cortical and cancellous bone is taken as 1.37 × 104 and 1.37 × 103, respectively, Poisson's ratio for both is considered 0.3 according to Çaglar et al.[15]

Geometric information of tapered implants of 4 mm diameter, 13 mm length, and 0.75 mm smooth coronal margin with V-shaped thread design[32],[33] and trichannel is the input for Catia software for modeling of implants. Young's modulus of 110,000 MPa and 200,000 MPa is considered for titanium and zirconia implants, respectively. Poisson's ratio of 0.35 for titanium and 0.31 for zirconium is given according to Çaglar et al.[15]

The implants are enclosed by cortical bone in the crestal region and the cancellous bone for the reminder of bone–implant interface. The abutments for the implants are of 3.5 mm height and 4 mm diameter. While the Young's modulus remained the same, Poisson's ratio was 0.35 for titanium abutment and 0.31 for zirconia abutment according to Çaglar et al.[15]

In the present study, it was found that similar stresses in titanium and zirconium implants at implant–bone interface, implant–abutment interface, and within the superstructure with 0° abutment angulation.

With respect to implant–bone interface in relation to zirconium implant, stresses were more concentrated more near to neck region than the titanium implants. Stress concentration in neck region with respect to be zirconium implants may be attributed to disparity between elastic modulus of bone and elastic modulus of zirconium, and it is in concurrence with studies conducted by Clelland et al.[13]

The behavior of titanium and zirconium implants with increase in angulation (15° and 25°) of abutments has produced the higher stresses at implant–bone interface, at implant–abutment interface, and within superstructure (PFM and zirconium) to off-axial loads, and in fact, they are well within the physiological limit as maximum tolerable stress values of titanium and zirconium implants are 680 MPa and 953 MPa.[34]

Incorporating properties of bone (D3) and it remain as one of the drawback of study as mere type 3 bone may not occur in all individuals. Earlier studies were attempted to analyse the stresses at cortical and cancellous bony natures of type 3 density bone (most commonly in the anterior maxillary region). However the observed stress values of Titanium and Zirconium implants with 0, 15, 25 degree abutment angulation of the present study reveals an increase in the stress values at crestal (neck) portion of the implant, when compared to body (middle) and apex of the implant embedded in the bone which were not been evaluated earlier.

Even though the present study has certain limitations to rehabilitate missing teeth using implants, the present study was performed utilizing FEA by incorporating properties of bone (Type III), material properties of implants (titanium and zirconium), and their superstructures (PFM and zirconia) along with luting agent (glass ionomer cement), assuming that implants are 100% osseointegrated which is never found in clinical situation, cortical bone and cancellous bone were considered to be isotropic, linearly elastic, and homogenous and finally the static loads that were applied differed from the dynamic loading encountered during function with different clinical situations. In most of the cases, for dental implants in the anterior maxilla, the use of angled abutments has become an increasing common practice as per patient expectations and clinical conditions. It is widely accepted that increased stress on implants and bone has been associated with the use of angulated abutments. Moreover, axial stresses on implants can be well tolerated as usually they occur with straight abutments; as the angulation abutment increases, there is a strong evidence that forces subjected will become non/off-axial in nature rather than axial. Although positing of implant and provision of over jet may decrease stresses, they will affect the esthetics and functional outcome of implant restorations in the anterior maxilla.[17] Cone beam computed tomography-guided implant placement in the anterior maxilla will overcome the possibility of an angulated abutments, yet expensive; hence, its use can be restricted to place multiple implants in the same region.[35],[36],[37],[38] Therefore, further studies can be carried out with improvements made to finite element models with respect to geometry of implants with regard to thread pitch, thread shape, and thread depth, applying dynamic loading conditions depending on the clinical situation.


  Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of the study, titanium (Ti-0°) and zirconium (Zr-0°) implants showed similar values of stresses, zirconium (Zr-15°) implant showed higher stresses than titanium (Ti-15°) at the implant–bone interface, at the implant–abutment interface, and within the superstructure, while zirconium (Zr-25°) implant showed peak stresses at implant–bone interface than titanium (Ti-25°) implant and similar stresses were found at the implant–abutment interface and within superstructure with the application of load of 178 N on the lingual fossa of crown at 120°angle to the long axis of implant (off-axial load).

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm Ux, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Albrektsson T. A multicenter report on osseointegrated oral implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:75-84.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:451-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Chang CL, Chen CS, Yeung TC, Hsu ML. Biomechanical effect of a zirconia dental implant-crown system: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:e49-57.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Andersson B, Odman P, Lindvall AM, Brånemark PI. Cemented single crowns on osseointegrated implants after 5 years: Results from a prospective study on CeraOne. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:212-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Andersson B, Glauser R, Maglione M, Taylor A. Ceramic implant abutments for short-span FPDs: A prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:640-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Yildirim M, Edelhoff D, Hanisch O, Spiekermann H. Ceramic abutments – A new era in achieving optimal esthetics in implant dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:81-91.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Schärer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:285-90.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD. One-year follow-up of first consecutive 100 zirconia dental implants in humans: A comparison of 2 different rough surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:430-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Caǧlar A, Aydin C, Ozen J, Yilmaz C, Korkmaz T. Effects of mesiodistal inclination of implants on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:36-44.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Caglar A, Bal BT, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Ozkan S. Evaluation of stresses occurring on three different zirconia dental implants: Three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:95-103.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Clelland NL, Lee JK, Bimbenet OC, Brantley WA. A three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of angled abutments for an implant placed in the anterior maxilla. J Prosthodont 1995;4:95-100.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hsu ML, Chen FC, Kao HC, Cheng CK. Influence of off-axis loading of an anterior maxillary implant: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:301-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Çaglar A, Bal BT, Karakoca S, Aydın C, Yılmaz H, Sarısoy S. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of titanium and yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide abutments and implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:961-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kao HC, Gung YW, Chung TF, Hsu ML. The influence of abutment angulation on micromotion level for immediately loaded dental implants: A 3-D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:623-30.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Wu D, Tian K, Chen J, Jin H, Huang W, Liu Y. A further finite element stress analysis of angled abutments for an implant placed in the anterior maxilla. Comput Math Methods Med 2015;2015:560645.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357-68.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Premnath K, Sridevi J, Kalavathy N, Nagaranjani P, Sharmila MR. Evaluation of stress distribution in bone of different densities using different implant designs: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:555-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Qian L, Todo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Effects of implant diameter, insertion depth, and loading angle on stress/strain fields in implant/jawbone systems: Finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:877-86.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Brånemark PI, Lindström J, Hallén O, Breine U, Jeppson PH, Ohman A. Reconstruction of the defective mandible. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1975;9:116-28.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Eckert SE, Choi YG, Sánchez AR, Koka S. Comparison of dental implant systems: Quality of clinical evidence and prediction of 5-year survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:406-15.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Rangert B. Biomechanics of the brånemark system. Aust Prosthodont J 1995;9 Suppl: 39-48.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: A retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:326-34.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Weinberg LA, Kruger B. A comparison of implant/prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:421-33.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Gunne J, Rangert B, Glantz PO, Svensson A. Functional loads on freestanding and connected implants in three-unit mandibular prostheses opposing complete dentures: Anin vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:335-41.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Rangert B, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Brunski J. Design, maintenance and biomechanical considerations in implant placement. Dent Update 1997;24:416-20.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, Tsuga K, Akagawa Y. A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:15-21.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
McCarthy C, Patel RR, Wragg PF, Brook IM. Dental implants and onlay bone grafts in the anterior maxilla: Analysis of clinical outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:238-41.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Thirupathi R. Chandrupatla Finite Element Analysis for Engineering and Technology. Hyderabad, Telangana: Universities Press Pvt., Ltd.; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Yijun Lu. Lecture Notes on: Introduction to the Finite Element Method. University of Cincinnati; 2003. p. 5-183.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Agrwal A, Patel RK, Kalavathy N, Prakash S. Evaluation of stress and strain distribution in endodontically treated maxillary central incisor with two different post and core systems-A 3D finite element analysis. Int J Prostho Dent 2011;2:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Velasco AB, Pevida EP, Garrudo AJ, Mur FJ, Manero JM, Fuste MP, et al. Mechanical characterization and biomechanical and biological behaviours of Ti-Zr binary alloy dental implants. Hindawi Biomed Res Int 2017;10:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
El-Anwar MI, AL-Azrag KE, Ghazy MH, Dawood LE. Influence of implant abutment angulations and crown materials on stress distribution on central incisor: A 3D FEA. Braz J Oral Sci 2015;14:323-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Kanneganti KC, Vinnakota DN, Pottem SR, Pulagam M. Comparative effect of implant-abutment connections, abutment angulations, and screw lengths on preloaded abutment screw using three-dimensional finite element analysis: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18:161-7.   Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
37.
Oswal MM, Amasi UN, Oswal MS, Bhagat AS. Influence of three different implant thread designs on stress distribution: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:359-65.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
38.
Mozayek RS, Mozayek MY, Allaf M, Abouharb MB. The effectiveness of adding a supporting implant in stress distribution of long span fixed partial denture (three-dimensional finite element analysis). J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:259-63.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed113    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded22    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]