Comparison of Tilted Versus Nontilted Implant-Supported Prosthetic Designs for the Restoration of the Edentuous Mandible: A Biomechanical Study

Bellini, CM; Romeo, D; Galbusera, F; Taschieri, S; Raimondi, MT; Zampelis, A; Francetti, L

dc.contributor.author	Bellini, CM	en
dc.contributor.author	Romeo, D	en
dc.contributor.author	Galbusera, F	en
dc.contributor.author	Taschieri, S	en
dc.contributor.author	Raimondi, MT	en
dc.contributor.author	Zampelis, A	en
dc.contributor.author	Francetti, L	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:58:51Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:58:51Z
dc.date.issued	2009	en
dc.identifier.issn	0882-2786	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/28759
dc.subject	biomechanics	en
dc.subject	edentulism	en
dc.subject	finite element analysis	en
dc.subject	implant-supported prosthesis	en
dc.subject	tilted implant	en
dc.subject.classification	Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine	en
dc.subject.other	FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS	en
dc.subject.other	OSSEOINTEGRATED IMPLANTS	en
dc.subject.other	IMMEDIATE REHABILITATION	en
dc.subject.other	FIXED PROSTHESES	en
dc.subject.other	STRESS	en
dc.subject.other	BRIDGES	en
dc.subject.other	MAXILLA	en
dc.subject.other	FORCES	en
dc.title	Comparison of Tilted Versus Nontilted Implant-Supported Prosthetic Designs for the Restoration of the Edentuous Mandible: A Biomechanical Study	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.language	English	en
heal.publicationDate	2009	en
heal.abstract	Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate, using finite element analysis, the stress patterns induced in cortical bone by three distinct implant-supported prosthetic designs. Materials and Methods: The first two models consisted of a prosthesis supported by four implants, the distal two of which were tilted, with different cantilever lengths (5 mm and 15 mm). The third design consisted of a prosthesis supported by five conventionally placed implants and a 15-mm cantilever. Results: In the tilted model with 5-mm cantilever and in the nontilted model, the maximum value of compressive stress (-18 Mpa) was found near the cervical area of the distal implant. Higher values for compressive stress were predicted near the cervical area of the distal implant in the tilted model with a 15-mm cantilever, as compared to the tilted model with the 5-mm cantilever. For the tilted model with the 5-mm cantilever, peak values of tensile stress were predicted near the cervical area of both the distal (1.25 Mpa) and the mesial implants (2.5 Mpa). For the nontilted model, the peak value was found near the cervical area of the in-between implant (5 Mpa). For the tilted model with 15-mm cantilever, tensile stress values were higher than in the tilted model with 5-mm cantilever. Conclusions: No significant difference in stress patterns between the tilted 5-mm and the nontilted 15-mm configuration was predicted. The tilted configuration with a 15-mm cantilever was found to induce higher stress values than the tilted configuration with a 5-mm cantilever. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2009;24:511-517	en
heal.publisher	QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC	en
heal.journalName	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS	en
dc.identifier.isi	ISI:000267494200017	en
dc.identifier.volume	24	en
dc.identifier.issue	3	en
dc.identifier.spage	511	en
dc.identifier.epage	517	en