Implant-retained mandibular ball-supported and bar-supported overlay dentures are the two most common treatment options for the edentulous mandible. The superior option in terms of strain distribution should be determined. The three-dimensional model of mandible (based on computerized tomography scan) anditsoverlying implant-retained bar-supported andball-supported overlaydentureswere simulated usingSolidWorks,NURBS, andANSYSWorkbench. LoadsA(60N) and B (60 N) were exerted, respectively, in protrusive and laterotrusive motions, on second molar mesial, first molar mesial, and first premolar. The strain distribution patterns were assessed on (1) implant tissue, (2) first implant-bone, and (3) second implant-bone interfaces. Protrusive: Strain was mostly detected in the apical of the fixtures and least in the cervical when bar design was used. On the nonworking side, however, strainwas higher in the cervical and lower in the apical compared with the working side implant. Laterotrusive: The strain values were closely similar in the two designs. It seems that both designs are acceptable in terms of stress distribution, although a superior pattern is associated with the application of bar design in protrusive motion.
CITATION STYLE
Vafaei, F., Khoshhal, M., Bayat-Movahed, S., Ahangary, A. H., Firooz, F., Izady, A., & Rakhshan, V. (2011). Comparative stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular ball-supported and bar-supported overlay dentures: A finite element analysis. Journal of Oral Implantology, 37(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00057
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.