Abstract

Aim: To accomplish a comparative study between two types of attachment Equator and Ball/Socket in mandibular implant supported overdenture by using finite element analysis and assessment of stress distribution on the bone, implant. overdenture, mucosa and attachment.

Methodology: Three-dimensional models simulated a clinical situation where an edentulous mandible was restored by two different treatment options using implant overdentures. The overdentures were supported by two implants placed at the approximate canine region using Ball/Socket and Equator attachments. The load was applied of value of 50,100,200 N with angle of vertical 90° then the oblique load with angel 45°.

Results: Attachment total deformation with using ball and socket attachments deforms much more than using equator attachment. Similarly, attachments Von Mises stress increase dramatically with ball and socket attachment. Central incisor loading did not show as much difference as molar area loading.

Conclusion: Equators body and its caps (flexible and metallic) received lower stresses that indicating longer life time and longer periods between successive maintenances.

Keywords: Bone; Ball; Socket

References

1. Emami Elham., et al. “The impact of edentulism on oral and general health”. International Journal of Dentistry 2013 (2013): 498305.
2. Bilhan Hakan., et al. “Complication rates and patient satisfaction with removable dentures”. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics2 (2012): 109-115.
3. Buser D., et al. “Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions”. Periodontology 1 (2017): 7-21.
4. Ding Xi., et al. “Implant–bone interface stress distribution in immediately loaded implants of different diameters: a three‐dimensional finite element analysis”. Journal of Prosthodontics: Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry5 (2009): 393-402.‏
5. F Wang., et al. “Maxillary Four Implant-retained Overdentures via Locator® Attachment: Intermediate-term Results from a Retrospective Study”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 3 (2016): 571-579.
6. El-Anwar MI., et al. “A Finite element study on stresses distribution of two different attachment designs under implant supported overdenture”. The Saudi Dental Journal4 (2015): 201-217.
7. Aunmeungtong Weerapan., et al. “Comparative clinical study of conventional dental implants and mini dental implants for mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research2 (2017): 328-340.
8. Marcello‐Machado., et al. “One‐year clinical outcomes of locking taper Equator attachments retaining mandibular overdentures to narrow diameter implants”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research4 (2018): 483-492.‏
9. Ozan and S Ramoglu. “Effect of Implant Height Differences on Different Attachment Types and Peri-Implant Bone in Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 3D Finite Element Study”. Journal of Oral Implantology3 (2015): 50-59.
10. Geng Jianping., et al. “Application of the finite element method in implant dentistry”. Springer Science and Business Media (2008).‏
11. El-Anwar MI., et al. “Influence of Number of Implants and Attachment Type on Stress Distribution in Mandibular Implant-Retained Overdentures: Finite Element Analysis”. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 2 (2017): 244-249.
12. MI El-Anwar. “Simple Technique to Build Complex 3D Solid Models”. Proceeding of 19th International Conference on Computer Theory and Applications (ICCTA 2009), 17-19 Oct. Alexandria, Egypt (2009).
13. Huang HL., et al. “Comparison of implant body designs and threaded designs of dental implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 4 (2007): 551-562.
14. Esteban Pérez-Pevida., et al. “Biomechanical Consequences of the Elastic Properties of Dental Implant Alloys on the Supporting Bone: Finite Element Analysis". BioMed Research International (2016): 9.
15. Lui J., et al. “Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behavior of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis”. Journal of Dentistry3 (2013): 241-249.
16. Visser Anita., et al. “Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: A 5‐year prospective study”. Clinical Oral Implants Research1 (2005): 19-25.‏
17. Schwitalla A D., et al. "Finite element analysis of the biomechanical effects of PEEK dental implants on the peri-implant bone”. Journal of Biomechanics1 (2015): 1-7.‏

Citation

Citation: Mahmoud Samir., et al. “Assessment of Stress Distribution Using Equator Attachment Design in Mandibular Implant-retained Overdentures in Comparison with Ball and Socket Attachment Design: 3D Finite Element Analysis". Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 5.1 (2021): 63-70.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Mahmoud Samir., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.