A comparison of stress distribution and flexion among various designs of bar attachments for implant overdentures

A three dimensional finite element analysis

Vijay Prakash, Mariette D'Souza, Raviraj Adhikari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Bar overdentures are popular choices among clinicians worldwide but configurations that provide an optimal biomechanical distribution of stress are still debatable. Aims: To compare the stresses and elastic flexion between implant supported bar overdentures in various configurations using finite element analysis. Settings and Design: A CAT scan of a human mandible was used to generate an anatomically accurate mechanical model. Materials and Methods: Three models with bars and clips in three different configurations were constructed. Model 1 had a single bar connecting two implants, Model 2 had three bars connecting all the four implants, and Model 3 had two bars connecting the medial and distal implants on the sides only. The models were loaded under static conditions with 100N load distributed at the approximate position of the clip. The mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its muscle supporting system. Maximum von Mises stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were compared in all three models. The flexion of mandible and the bar was also compared qualitatively. Statistical Analysis Used: The analyses were accomplished using the ANSYS software program and were processed by a personal computer. Stress on these models was analyzed after loading conditions. Results: Qualitative comparisons showed that stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were in the following order: Model 1> Model 3> Model 2. The flexion of the mandible and the bar were in the following order: Model 2 > Model 1 > Model 3. Conclusions: Four implant bar systems connected by bars on the sides only is a better choice than two implant bar systems and four implant bar systems with bars connecting all four implants.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31-36
Number of pages6
JournalIndian Journal of Dental Research
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2009

Fingerprint

Overlay Denture
Finite Element Analysis
Mandible
Surgical Instruments
Microcomputers
Software
Muscles
Bone-Implant Interface

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{ee6008e183bb4d3fbceb48d610c33b21,
title = "A comparison of stress distribution and flexion among various designs of bar attachments for implant overdentures: A three dimensional finite element analysis",
abstract = "Context: Bar overdentures are popular choices among clinicians worldwide but configurations that provide an optimal biomechanical distribution of stress are still debatable. Aims: To compare the stresses and elastic flexion between implant supported bar overdentures in various configurations using finite element analysis. Settings and Design: A CAT scan of a human mandible was used to generate an anatomically accurate mechanical model. Materials and Methods: Three models with bars and clips in three different configurations were constructed. Model 1 had a single bar connecting two implants, Model 2 had three bars connecting all the four implants, and Model 3 had two bars connecting the medial and distal implants on the sides only. The models were loaded under static conditions with 100N load distributed at the approximate position of the clip. The mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its muscle supporting system. Maximum von Mises stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were compared in all three models. The flexion of mandible and the bar was also compared qualitatively. Statistical Analysis Used: The analyses were accomplished using the ANSYS software program and were processed by a personal computer. Stress on these models was analyzed after loading conditions. Results: Qualitative comparisons showed that stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were in the following order: Model 1> Model 3> Model 2. The flexion of the mandible and the bar were in the following order: Model 2 > Model 1 > Model 3. Conclusions: Four implant bar systems connected by bars on the sides only is a better choice than two implant bar systems and four implant bar systems with bars connecting all four implants.",
author = "Vijay Prakash and Mariette D'Souza and Raviraj Adhikari",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/0970-9290.49058",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "31--36",
journal = "Indian Journal of Dental Research",
issn = "0970-9290",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of stress distribution and flexion among various designs of bar attachments for implant overdentures

T2 - A three dimensional finite element analysis

AU - Prakash, Vijay

AU - D'Souza, Mariette

AU - Adhikari, Raviraj

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Context: Bar overdentures are popular choices among clinicians worldwide but configurations that provide an optimal biomechanical distribution of stress are still debatable. Aims: To compare the stresses and elastic flexion between implant supported bar overdentures in various configurations using finite element analysis. Settings and Design: A CAT scan of a human mandible was used to generate an anatomically accurate mechanical model. Materials and Methods: Three models with bars and clips in three different configurations were constructed. Model 1 had a single bar connecting two implants, Model 2 had three bars connecting all the four implants, and Model 3 had two bars connecting the medial and distal implants on the sides only. The models were loaded under static conditions with 100N load distributed at the approximate position of the clip. The mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its muscle supporting system. Maximum von Mises stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were compared in all three models. The flexion of mandible and the bar was also compared qualitatively. Statistical Analysis Used: The analyses were accomplished using the ANSYS software program and were processed by a personal computer. Stress on these models was analyzed after loading conditions. Results: Qualitative comparisons showed that stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were in the following order: Model 1> Model 3> Model 2. The flexion of the mandible and the bar were in the following order: Model 2 > Model 1 > Model 3. Conclusions: Four implant bar systems connected by bars on the sides only is a better choice than two implant bar systems and four implant bar systems with bars connecting all four implants.

AB - Context: Bar overdentures are popular choices among clinicians worldwide but configurations that provide an optimal biomechanical distribution of stress are still debatable. Aims: To compare the stresses and elastic flexion between implant supported bar overdentures in various configurations using finite element analysis. Settings and Design: A CAT scan of a human mandible was used to generate an anatomically accurate mechanical model. Materials and Methods: Three models with bars and clips in three different configurations were constructed. Model 1 had a single bar connecting two implants, Model 2 had three bars connecting all the four implants, and Model 3 had two bars connecting the medial and distal implants on the sides only. The models were loaded under static conditions with 100N load distributed at the approximate position of the clip. The mandibular boundary conditions were modeled considering the real geometry of its muscle supporting system. Maximum von Mises stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were compared in all three models. The flexion of mandible and the bar was also compared qualitatively. Statistical Analysis Used: The analyses were accomplished using the ANSYS software program and were processed by a personal computer. Stress on these models was analyzed after loading conditions. Results: Qualitative comparisons showed that stress at the level of the bar and at the bone implant interface were in the following order: Model 1> Model 3> Model 2. The flexion of the mandible and the bar were in the following order: Model 2 > Model 1 > Model 3. Conclusions: Four implant bar systems connected by bars on the sides only is a better choice than two implant bar systems and four implant bar systems with bars connecting all four implants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64249087470&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=64249087470&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/0970-9290.49058

DO - 10.4103/0970-9290.49058

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 31

EP - 36

JO - Indian Journal of Dental Research

JF - Indian Journal of Dental Research

SN - 0970-9290

IS - 1

ER -