Mechanical behavior of implant-supported full-arch prostheses in different locations in the maxilla: 3D-FEA and strain gauge analysis

Authors

  • Mateus Favero Barra Grande São Paulo State University, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0996-0847
  • Guilherme da Rocha Scalzer Lopes São Paulo State University, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4310-0082
  • Marcelo Lucchesi Teixeira São Leopoldo Mandic University, Department of Dental Prosthodontics, Campinas, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9916-5777
  • André Antônio Pelegrine São Paulo State University, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-1062
  • Jefferson David Melo de Matos São Paulo State University, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4507-0785
  • Renato Sussumo Nishioka São Paulo State University, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1458-601X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4322/bds.2023.e3771

Abstract

The maxillary bone restriction can limit the implants position to support a full-arch prosthesis. Objective: Therefore, this study evaluated the biomechanical behavior of a full-arch prosthesis supported by six implants in different configurations: group A (implants inserted in the region of canines, first premolars and second molars), group B (implants inserted in the region of first premolar, first molar and second molar) and group C (implants in second premolar, first premolar and second molar). Material and Methods: The models were analyzed by the finite element method validated by strain gauge. Three types of loads were applied: in the central incisors, first premolars and second molars, obtaining results of von-Mises stress peaks and microstrain. All registered results reported higher stress concentration in the prosthesis of all groups, with group C presenting higher values in all structures when compared to A and B groups. The highest mean microstrain was also observed in group C (288.8 ± 225.2 microstrain), however, there was no statistically significant difference between the evaluated groups. In both groups, regardless of the magnitude and direction of the load, the maximum von-Mises stresses recorded for implants and prosthesis displacements were lower in group A. Conclusion: It was concluded that an equidistant distribution of implants favors biomechanical behavior of full-arch prostheses supported by implants; and the placement of posterior implants seems to be a viable alternative to rehabilitate totally edentulous individuals.

KEYWORDS

Dental implants; Biomechanical phenomena; Dental prosthesis; Finite element analysis; Maxilla.

Downloads

Published

2023-06-15

Issue

Vol. 26 No. 2 (2023): Apr - Jun / 2023 - Published Mar 2023

Section

Clinical or Laboratorial Research