Finite element analysis of implant-supported prosthesis with pontic and cantilever in the posterior maxilla

• Autor(a) principal: de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: Verri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP], Almeida, Daniel Augusto de Faria, Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira, Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo [UNESP], Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2017.1287905; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/174210
• topic: biomechanical phenomena; dental implant; Finite element analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of pontic and cantilever designs (mesial and distal) on 3-unit implant-retained prosthesis at maxillary posterior region verifying stress and strain distributions on bone tissue (cortical and trabecular bones) and stress distribution in abutments, implants and fixation screws, under axial and oblique loadings, by 3D finite element analysis. Each model was composed of a bone block presenting right first premolar to the first molar, with three or two external hexagon implants (4.0 × 10 mm), supporting a 3-unit splinted dental fixed dental prosthesis with the variations: M1–three implants supporting splinted crowns; M2–two implants supporting prosthesis with central pontic; M3–two implants supporting prosthesis with mesial cantilever; M4–two implants supporting prosthesis with distal cantilever. The applied forces were 400 N axial and 200 N oblique. The von Mises criteria was used to evaluate abutments, implants and fixation screws and maximum principal stress and microstrain criteria were used to evaluate the bone tissue. The decrease of the number of implants caused an unfavorable biomechanical behavior for all structures (M2, M3, M4). For two implant-supported prostheses, the use of the central pontic (M2) showed stress and strain distributions more favorable in the analyzed structures. The use of cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior (M3 and M4), mainly for distal cantilever (M4). The use of three implants presented lower values of stress and strain on the analyzed structures. Among two implant-supported prostheses, prostheses with cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior in the analyzed structures, especially for distal cantilever.