Biomechanical effects of two different collar implant structures on stress distribution under cantilever fixed partial dentures

References

• Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:441–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeo E, Tomasi C, Finini I, Casentini P, Lops D. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prosthesis in partially edentulous jaws: a cohort prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1278–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980;38:613–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundgren D, Nyman S. Bone regeneration in 2 stages for retention of dental implant. A case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:203–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Romeed SA, Fok SL, Wilson NH. Biomechanics of cantilever fixed partial dentures in shortened dental arch therapy. J Prosthodont 2004;13:90–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greco GD, Jansen WC, Junior JL, Seraidarian PI. Stress analysis on the free-end distal extension of an implant-supported mandibular complete denture. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:175–81.
   Google Scholar
• Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:303–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:136–59.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ashman RB, Van Buskirk WC. The elastic properties of a human mandible. Adv Dent Res 1987;1:64–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis DM, Rimrott R, Zarb GA. Studies on frameworks for osseointegrated prosthesis: part II. The effect of adding acrylic resin or porcelain to form the occlusal superstructure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:275–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodriguez A, Aquilino S, Lund P. Cantilever and implant biomechanics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1994;3:41–6.
   Google Scholar
• Becker CM, Kaiser DA. Implant-retained cantilever fixed prosthesis: where and when. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:432–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Himmel R, Pilo R, Assif D, Aviv I. The cantilever fixed partial denture-a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:484–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, Miyakawa O. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:82–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayabaşi O, YüzbasIoğlu E, ErzincanlI F. Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviours of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Software 2006;37:649–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacques LB, Moura MS, Suedam V, Sauza EA, Rubo JH. Effect of cantilever length and framework alloy on the stress distribution of mandibular-cantilevered implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:737–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simşek B, Erkmen E, Yilmaz D, Eser A. Effects of different inter-implant distances on the stress distribution around endosseous implants in posterior mandible: a 3D finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 2006;28:199–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang JK, Chen ZQ. The study of effects of changes of the elastic modulus of the materials substitute to human hard tissues on the mechanical state in the implant-bone interface by three-dimensional anisotropic finite element analysis. West China J Stomatol 1998;16:274–8.
   Google Scholar
• Kong L, Sun Y, Hu K, Liu Y, Li D, Qiu Z, Selections of the cylinder implant neck taper and implant end fillet for optimal biomechanical properties: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 2008;41:1124–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson S, Werke M. The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 2003;36:1247–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piao CM, Lee JE, Koak JY, Kim SK, Rhyu IC, Han CH. Marginal bone loss around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:748–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malevez C, Hermans M, Daelemans P. Marginal bone levels at Branemark system implants used for single tooth restoration. The influence of implant design and anatomical region. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:162–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:394–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro-and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:91–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Mahony AM, Williams JL, Spencer P. Anisotropic elasticity of cortical and cancellous bone in the posterior mandible increases peri-implant stress and strain under oblique loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:648–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagasao T, Kobayashi M, Tsuchiya Y, Kaneko T, Nakajima T. Finite element analysis of the stresses around fixtures in various reconstructed mandibular models–part II (effect of horizontal load). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31:168–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Akca K, Iplikcioglu H. Evaluation of the effects of the residual bone angulation on implant-supported fixed prosthesis in mandibular posterior edentulism. Part II. 3D finite element stress analysis. Implant Dent 2001;10:238–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iplikçioğlu H, Akça K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;30:41–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clelland NL, Gilat A, McGlumphy EA, Brantley WA. A photoelastic and strain gauge analysis of angled abutments for an implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:541–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang BC, Chang E, Yang CY, Tu D. A histomorphometric study on osteoconduction and osseointegration of titanium alloy with and without plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating using back-scattered electron images. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1993;4:394–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:234–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozen J, Caglar A, Beydemir B, Aydin C, Dalkiz M. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of different core materials in maxillary implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2007;38:355–63.
   Google Scholar
• Kamposiora P, Papavasilliou G, Boyne SC, Felton DA. Stress concentration in all-ceramic posterior fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 1996;27:701–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eraslan O, Sevimay M, Usumez A, Eskitascioglu G. Effects of cantilever design and material on stres distribution in fixed partial dentures – a finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:273–78.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar