Evaluating the Implant Need in the Anterior Region in All on Four Treatments Applied on Maxillae with Different Arch Forms using Finite Element Analysis

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 134 - 142, 26.03.2025

Murat Ulu , Yusuf Ercan

https://doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.1628586

Öz

Abstract

Aim; The aim of this study is to determine the stress differences created in the implants and surrounding tissues by applying forces to different locations on the prostheses planned on the all on four implants with different arch forms (triangular, oval, square) in the upper jaw using finite element analysis.
Method; In this study, maxilla models with three different arch forms were designed, namely triangular, oval, and square. A total of 6 study groups were obtained by using 2 different implant placement protocols. Group 1 consisted of 4 implants placed in a triangular arch form, Group 2 consisted of 5
implants placed in a triangular arch form, Group 3 consisted of 4 implants placed in an oval arch form, Group 4 consisted of 5 implants placed in an oval arch form, Group 5 consisted of 4 implants placed in a square arch form, and Group 6 consisted of 5 implants placed in a square arch form. In all study models, an oblique force of 100 N with a 30-degree buccopalatal inclination was applied to the hybrid prosthesis rigidly supported on the model from tooth area 21, and a vertical force of 100 N was applied from the central fossa level of tooth area 26. The stress values created in the cortical and spongy bone surrounding the implants, as well as on the implants themselves, were analyzed using finite element analysis.
Results; When we examined the tensile stresses in the cortical bone under vertical and oblique forces, it was determined that the highest stress reduction rate with increasing implant number while keeping the arch form constant was in the triangular arch form. When we examined the compressive stresses in the cortical bone under vertical forces, it was determined that the most significant stress reduction rate with increasing implant number while keeping the arch form constant was in the square arch form, and under oblique forces, the highest stress reduction rate was in the triangular arch form.When we examined the tensile stresses in the trabecular bone under vertical forces, it was determined that the most significant stress reduction rate with increasing implant number while keeping the arch form constant was in the oval arch form, and under oblique forces, the highest stress reduction rate was in the
triangular arch form. When we examined the compressive stresses in the trabecular bone under vertical forces, it was determined that the most significant stress reduction rate with increasing implant number while keeping the arch form constant was in the triangular arch form, and under oblique forces, the highest stress reduction rate was in the oval arch form.
Conclusion; When planning an all-on-four procedure, and in patients with a triangular arch form, planning one extra implant in the anterior region resulted in a greater reduction in stress compared to other arch forms. The arch form where the least reduction in stress was observed was identified as the square arch form.
Keywords: Finite Element Analysis (FEA), All On Four, Dental Implant, Maxillary Arch.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Finite Element Analysis (FEA), All On Four, Dental Implant, Maxillary Arch.

Farklı Ark Formuna Sahip Maksillada Uygulanan All On Four Tedavilerinde, Anterior Bölgedeki İmplant İhtiyacının Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi İle Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

ÖZ
Giriş ve Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı ark formuna sahip (üçgen, oval, kare) üst çenede yapılan all on four implantların üstüne planlanan protezlerde farklı yerlere uygulanan kuvvetlerin, sonlu elemanlar analizi ile implant ve çevre dokuda oluşturduğu stres farklarını belirlemektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada 3 farklı ark formuna sahip maksilla modelleri tasarlandı. 2 farklı implant yerleştirme protokolü ile toplam 6 çalışma grubu elde edildi. Grup 1 üçgen ark formunda 4 implant yerleştirilen, Grup 2 üçgen ark formunda 5 implant yerleştirilen, Grup 3 oval ark formunda 4 implant yerleştirilen, Grup 4 oval ark formunda 5 implant yerleştirilen, Grup 5 kare ark formunda 4 implant yerleştilen, Grup 6 kare ark formunda 5 implant yerleştirilen çalışma grupları olmuştur. Tüm çalışma modellerinde üstüne yapılan rijit titanyum destekli sabit hibrit proteze 21 numaralı diş bölgesinden 30 derece bukko-palatinal açılı 100 N’luk oblik bir kuvvet, 26 numaralı diş bölgesinden ise santral fossa hizasından dik bir şekilde 100 N’luk kuvvet uygulanmıştır. İmplant etrafındaki kortikal ve spongioz kemiklerde ve aynı zamanda implantın üstünde oluşan stres değerleri sonlu elamanlar analizi ile incelenmiştir.
Bulgular: Kortikal kemikteki çekme streslerine dik ve oblik kuvvet altında baktığımızda, ark formlarını sabit tutup implant sayısını arttırdığımızda en fazla stres azalma oranının üçgen ark formunda olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Kortikal kemikteki basma streslerine dik kuvvet altında baktığımızda, ark formlarını sabit tutup implant sayısını arttırdığımızda en anlamlı stres azalma oranının kare ark formunda olduğu, oblik kuvvet altında baktığımızda en fazla stres azalma oranının üçgen ark formunda olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
Trabeküler kemikteki çekme streslerine dik kuvvet altında baktığımızda, ark formlarını sabit tutup implant sayısını arttırdığımızda en anlamlı stres azalma oranının oval ark formunda olduğu, oblik kuvvet altında baktığımızda en fazla stres azalma oranının üçgen ark formunda olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Trabeküler kemikteki basma streslerine dik kuvvet altında baktığımızda, ark formlarını sabit tutup implant sayısını arttırdığımızda en anlamlı stres azalma oranının üçgen ark formunda olduğu, oblik kuvvet altında baktığımızda en fazla stres azalma oranının oval ark formunda olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
Sonuç: All on four tedavi planlaması yaparken hastanın ark formuna dikkat etmemiz gerektiğini ve üçgen ark formuna sahip hastalarda anteriora 1 implant fazla planlanması diğer ark formlarına göre daha fazla stresin azalmasına neden olmuştur. Bu stres azalma oranının en az kare ark formunda görüldüğü tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi (SEA), All On Four, Dental İmplant, Maksiller Ark.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi (SEA), All On Four, Dental İmplant, Maksiller Ark.

Kaynakça

• Brodala N. Flapless surgery and its effect on dental implant outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:118–25.
• 2. Atalay B. İleri Derecede Rezorbe Maksilla Ların Zigomatik İmplantlar Rehabilitasyonu. İstanbul Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg. 2010;44(2):133–40
• 3. Isaksson S, Ekfeldt A, Alberius P, Blomqvist JE. Early results from reconstruction of severely atrophic (Class VI) maxillas by immediate endosseous implants in conjunction with bone grafting and Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Jun;22(3):144–8.
• 4. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” Immediate-Function Concept with Brånemark System® Implants for Completely Edentulous Mandibles: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003 Mar;5:2–9.
• 5. Li Y, Shao Y, Yu Y, Ye Y, Lu Y, Chang S. Finite Element Analysis of Orthodontic Relapse in Different Maxillary Arch Form. BIO Integration. 2021;2(4):152–60.
• 6. Wen H, Guo W, Liang R, Xiang L, Long G, Wang T, et al. Finite element analysis of three zygomatic implant techniques for the severely atrophic edentulous maxilla. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Mar;111(3):203–15.
• 7. Lombardo G, D’Agostino A, Trevisiol L, Romanelli MG, Mascellaro A, Gomez-Lira M, et al. Clinical, microbiologic and radiologic assessment of soft and hard tissues surrounding zygomatic implants: a retrospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016 Nov;122(5):537–46.
• 8. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindström H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(3):405–14.
• 9. O’Connell JE, Cotter E, Kearns GJ. Maxillary reconstruction using zygomatic implants: a report of two cases. J Ir Dent Assoc. 2011;57(3):146–55.
• 10. Fortin Y, Sullivan RM, Rangert BR. The Marius implant bridge: surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation for the completely edentulous upper jaw with moderate to severe resorption: a 5-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(2):69–77
• . 11. Wu AY-J, Hsu J-T, Fuh L-J, Huang H-L. Effects of Positions and Angulations of Titanium Dental Implants in Biomechanical Performances in the All-on-Four Treatment: 3D Numerical and Strain Gauge Methods. Metals. 2020;10(2):280.
• 12. Peixoto HE, Camati PR, Faot F, Sotto-Maior BS, Martinez EF, Peruzzo DC. Rehabilitation of the atrophic mandible with short implants in different positions: A finite elements study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017 Nov 1;80:122–8.
• 13. Bevilacqua M, Tealdo T, Menini M, Pera F, Mossolov A, Drago C, et al. The influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in maxillary implant-supported fixed dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Jan;105(1):5–13.
• 14. Durkan R, Oyar P, Deste G. Effects of Cantilever Length and Implant Inclination on the Stress Distribution of Mandibular Prosthetic Restorations Constructed from Monolithic Zirconia Ceramic. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(1):121–9.
• 15. Begg T, Geerts GAVM, Gryzagoridis J. Stress patterns around distal angled implants in the all-on-four concept configuration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(4):663–71.
• 16. Ozan O, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S. Biomechanical Comparison of Different Implant Inclinations and Cantilever Lengths in All-on-4 Treatment Concept by Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(1):64–71.
• 17. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7 Suppl 1:88–94.
• 18. Ayali A, Altagar M, Ozan O, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S. Biomechanical comparison of the All-on-4, M-4, and V-4 techniques in an atrophic maxilla: A 3D finite element analysis. Comput Biol Med. 2020;123:103880.
• 19. DeTolla DH, Andreana S, Patra A, Buhite R, Comella B. Role of the finite element model in dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 2000;26(2):77–81.
• 20. Seker E, Ulusoy M, Ozan O, Doğan DÖ, Seker BK. Biomechanical effects of different fixed partial denture designs planned on bicortically anchored short, graft-supported long, or 45-degree-inclined long implants in the posterior maxilla: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(1):1–9.