Aim: The aim of the present study was to study the effect of different types of implant-supported prosthetic material on the stress distribution in peri-implant bone. And to explore the suitability of recent materials like polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and monolithic zirconia (M4) for implant framework designing.
Materials and methods: Virtual mesh was designed for five different prosthetic materials (Mat) namely cobalt-chromium, titanium, zirconia, M4, and PEEK. Forces were directed in vertical, horizontal, and oblique directions to get different fringes of stress severity in the surrounding bone. Finite element analysis (FEA) along with optimization methods was used for in vitro testing and comparison. Statistical analysis was performed using von Mises Stress Analysis and unpaired t-test followed by optimization of FEA results.
Results: PEEK was found to have a statistically significant (p-value < 0.0001) result with respect to stress distribution in peri-implant bone in D1 type bone. Moreover, M4 showed favorable results in other bone conditions (D2, D3 type). The responses were optimized through the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) concept of Taguchi Technique using MINITAB 17 software technique.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study PEEK and M4 were found to be the most efficient prosthetic material as compared to the conventionally used metal alloys. Higher crestal bone stresses were reported in all the FEA models suggesting occlusal forces were far more detrimental than the type of prosthetic material used.
Clinical significance: The study is an experimental simulation of stresses associated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis material type and its influence on surrounding bone. The findings recommend the significant influence of bone density and type on the choice of prosthetic material and discourage the routine selection of cobalt-chromium for every case.
Arinc H. Effects of prosthetic material and framework design on stress distribution in dental implants and peripheral bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:4279–4287. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.908208
Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17(1):5–15. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059
Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49(6):843–848. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-x. PMID: 6576140
Möllers K, Pätzold W, Parkot D, et al. Influence of connector design and material composition and veneering on the stress distribution of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: a finite element study. Dent Mater 2011;27(8):e171–e175. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.009
Jomjunyong K, Rungsiyakull P, Rungsiyakull C, et al. Stress distribution of various designs of prostheses on short implants or standard implants in posterior maxilla: a three dimensional finite element analysis. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2017;10(4):369–380. DOI: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.4.369
Kassapidou M, Franke Stenport V, Hjalmarsson L, et al. Cobalt-chromium alloys in fixed prosthodontics in Sweden. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2017;3(1):53–62. DOI: 10.1080/23337931.2017.1360776
Ferreira MB, Barão VA, Faverani LP, et al. The role of superstructure material on the stress distribution in mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures. A CT-based 3D-FEA. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2014;35:92–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.10.022
Arvidson K, Cottler-Fox M, Hammarlund E, et al. Cytotoxic effects of cobalt-chromium alloys on fibroblasts derived from human gingiva. Scand J Dent Res 1987;95(4):356–363. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1987.tb01853.x
Sertgöz A. Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10(1):19–27. PMID: 9484066.
Pikner SS, Gröndahl K, Jemt T, et al. Marginal bone loss at implants: a retrospective, long-term follow-up of turned Brånemark System implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11(1):11–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00092.x
Konstantinidis IK, Jacoby S, Rädel M, et al. Prospective evaluation of zirconia based tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: 3-year results. J Dent 2015;43(1):87–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.011
Alqurashi H, Khurshid Z, Syed AUY, et al. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK): an emerging biomaterial for oral implants and dental prostheses. J Adv Res 2021;28:87–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.09.004
Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(6):633–440. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90442-4
Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kiliçarslan MA, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(3):227–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.019
Kitagawa T, Tanimoto Y, Nemoto K, et al. Influence of cortical bone quality on stress distribution in bone around dental implant. Dent Mater J 2005;24(2):219–224. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.24.219
Chuang SK, Wei LJ, Douglass CW, et al. Risk factors for dental implant failure: a strategy for the analysis of clustered failure-time observations. J Dent Res 2002;81(8):572–577. DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100814
Lee WT, Koak JY, Lim YJ, et al. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2012;100(4):1044–1052. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32669