Comparative analysis of stress and deformation distribution in implant-supported telescopic systems made of different materials

Milan Bojović; Jelena  Todić; Milan  Blagojević

doi:10.2298/VSP210403049B

Milan Bojović Community Health Center, Department of Dentistry, Zvečan, Serbia
Jelena Todić University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Milan Blagojević University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Mechanical Engineering, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP210403049B

Keywords: cobalt, chromium, computer-aided design, crowns, dental materials, dental stress analysis, polymers

Abstract

Background/Aim. In implant prosthetics, there is an increasing use of materials that, with their mechanical characteristics, can alleviate the negative consequences of implant stress. The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of stress distribution and deformation of implant-supported telescopic systems and surrounding structures made of different materials using the finite element method. Methods. The 3D finite element models were prepared using the SolidWorks program (SolidWorks 2018, Concord, MA, USA). Two models of telescopic crowns with the characteristics of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) polymer and cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloy faceted with feldspar ceramics were used. The models were loaded with an axial force of 150 N in the region of the central fossa. The analysis of stress and strain distribution was performed by the finite element method in the Ansys software (ANSYS Workbench 16; Ansys Inc., Pittsburg, PA, USA). Results. Implant-supported telescopic crowns made of PEEK polymer significantly reduced stress in the implant and abutment neck area compared to the conventional Co-Cr crown veneered ceramic. At the level of bone structure, both models showed a concentration of stress at the level of the cortical bone, while the trabecular bone was significantly less exposed to stress. Under the same conditions, the degree of deformation of the secondary telescopic crown was more pronounced in models with PEEK polymer characteristics. Conclusion. Owing to their mechanical characteristics, PEEK polymers can be the materials of choice in the fabrication of superstructures on implants. Given that this in vitro study was accompanied by limitations, further research is needed to confirm the superior role of PEEK material in implant prosthetics.

References

1. Korberg K. Konuskronen – telescope: Einfuhrung in Klinik und Technik. Heindelberg: Huthig; 1973. (German)

2. Wolfart S. Implantoprosthetics: A patient-centered concept. Croatia, Zagreb: Quintessence publishing; 2015. (Croatian)

3. Diedrichs G, Rosenhain P, Galvano-Außenteleskope in der direkten Technik. Quintessenz 1991; 42 (49): 49‒55. (German)

4. Garcia-Gonzalez D, Rusinek A, Jankowiak T, Arias A. Mechanical impact behavior of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK). Compos Struct 2015; 124: 88‒99.

5. Zhou L, Qia Y, Zhu Y, Liu H, Gan K, Guo J. The effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength REFERENCES of PEEK composite materials. Dent Mater 2014; 30(8): e209‒15.

6. Farah WJ, Craig GR, Meroueh KA. Finite element analysis of a mandibular model. J Oral R 1988; 15(6): 615‒24.

7. Darendeliler S, Darendeliler H, Kinoğlu T. Analysis of a central maxillary incisor by using a three-dimensional finite element method. J Oral Rehabil 1992; 19(4): 371‒83.

8. Cervino G, Romeo U, Lauritano F, Bramanti E, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, et al. Von Mises Analysis of OSSTEM ® Dental Implant Structural Components: Evaluation of Different Direction Dynamic Loads. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 219‒29.

9. Pessoa RS, Coelho PG, Muraru L, Marcantonio E Jr, Vaz LG, Vander Sloten J, et al. Influence of implant design on the biomechanical environment of immediately placed implants: computed tomography-based nonlinear three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26(6): 1279‒87.

10. Ding X, Liao SH, Zhu XH, Zhang XH, Zhang L. Effect of diameter and length on stress distribution of the alveolar crest around immediate loading implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11(4): 279‒87.

11. Alvarez-Arenal A, Segura-Mori L, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, Gago A. Stress distribution in the abutment and retention screw of a single implant supporting a prosthesis with platform switching. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28(3): e112‒21.

12. Bona AD, Anusavice KJ, DeHoff PH. Weibull analysis and flexural strength of hot-pressed core and veneered ceramic structures. Dent Mater 2003; 19(7): 662‒9.

13. Tekin S, Adıgüzel Ö, Cangül S. An evaluation using micro-CT data of the stress formed in the crown and periodontal tissues from the use of PEEK post and PEEK crown: A 3D finite element analysis study. Int Dent Res 2018; 8(3): 144‒50.

14. Siewert B, Parra M, A new group of maretial in dentistry. PEEK as a framework material for 12piece implant supported bridges. Zahnarztl Implantol 2013; 29: 148‒59.

15. Muhsin SA, Hatton PV, Johnson A, Sereno N, Wood DJ. Determination of Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) mechanical properties as a denture material. Saudi Dent J 2019; 31(3): 382‒91.

16. Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M. Static, Dynamic, and Fatigue Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Different Thread Designs. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2016; 26(4): 347‒55.

17. Samra RK, Bhide SV, Goyal C, Kaur T. Tooth supported overdenture. A concept overshadowed but not yet forgotten! J Oral Res Rev 2015; 7(1): 16‒21.

18. Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Bosman F, Steen WH. A comparison of three finite element models of an edentulous mandible provided with implants. J Oral Rehabil 1993; 20(2): 147‒57.

19. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15(1): 15‒46.

20. Abbasi MRA, Vinnakota DN, Sankar V, Kamatham R. Comparison of stress induced in mandible around an implant-supported overdenture with locator attachment and telescopic crowns - a finite element analysis. Med Pharm Rep 2020; 93(2): 181‒9.

21. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016; 60(1): 12‒9.

22. Tekin S, Değer Y, Demirci F. Evaluation of the use of PEEK material in implant-supported fixed restorations by finite element analysis. Niger J Clin Pract 2019; 22(9): 1252‒8.

23. Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I. Modified PEEK resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis as an interim restoration after implant placement. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 637‒41.

24. Dashti MH, Atashrazm P, Emadi MI, Mishaeel S, Banava S. The effects of two attachment types on the stresses introduced to the mandibular residual ridge: a 3D finite element analysis. Quintessence Int 2013; 44(8): 585‒90.

25. El-Anwar MI, El-Mofty MS, Awad AH, El-Sheikh SA, El-Zawahry MM. The effect of using different crown and implant materials on bone stress distribution: a finite element study. Egypt J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 5(2): 58‒64.

26. Von Meyer H. Die architectur der spongiosa. Archiv fur Anatomie und Physiologie 1867; 47: 615–28. (German)

27. Stephan A, Steffen K, Frank K, Jörg L, Jörg N. A wealth of possible applications for high‑performance polymers. Quintessenz Zahntech 2013; 39: 2‒10.