A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study

Aim: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. Settings and Design: An in vitro perspective Materials and Methods: Two mandibular three-dimensiona...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jaisudhaa Murugaian (Author), Lambodaran Ganesan (Author), M S Sathya Shankar (Author), H Annapoorni (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2022-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_a7de44debfd847ed8b47d4fda298ceb2
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Jaisudhaa Murugaian  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Lambodaran Ganesan  |e author 
700 1 0 |a M S Sathya Shankar  |e author 
700 1 0 |a H Annapoorni  |e author 
245 0 0 |a A comparative evaluation of stress distribution between an All-on-Four implant-supported prosthesis and the Trefoil implant-supported prosthesis: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study 
260 |b Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications,   |c 2022-01-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 0972-4052 
500 |a 1998-4057 
500 |a 10.4103/jips.jips_203_21 
520 |a Aim: The primary aim of this study is to analyse the stress distribution between an ALL ON FOUR implant supported prosthesis and the TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis with 3D finite element models. Settings and Design: An in vitro perspective Materials and Methods: Two mandibular three-dimensional Finite Element Models were constructed by the CREO version 5 software, in which Model A depicts a mandible with ALL ON FOUR implant supported prost hesis and Model B will depict TREFOIL implant supported prosthesis. Model A contains four implants, two anterior straight and posterior tilted implants (30°), a bar and denture containing acrylic teeth. In Model B, it contains three straight implants and a prefabricated compensatory bar with standardised dimensions. To evaluate and compare the stress distribution between the bone and implant interface, one deleterious cantilever load of upto 300 N is applied on the second molar bilaterally and simultaneously. Another full bite biting load of 150 N is given bilaterally and simultaneously on the central groove of premolars and molars. Statistical Analysis Used: The results of the simulations obtained were analysed in terms of Von Mises equivalent stress levels at the bone -implant interface. Results: The results of loading 1 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress was recorded in the anterior implant region of the Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. The results of loading 2 showed that the maximum Von Mises stress were recorded in the anterior implant region Trefoil system (Model B) when compared to All on four concept. Conclusion: This invitro study concludes that All on Four implant supported prosthesis showed better stress distribution when compared to the Trefoil concept. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a all-on-four 
690 |a bone-implant interface 
690 |a finite element analysis 
690 |a trefoil concept 
690 |a Dentistry 
690 |a RK1-715 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 56-64 (2022) 
787 0 |n http://www.j-ips.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4052;year=2022;volume=22;issue=1;spage=56;epage=64;aulast=Murugaian 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/0972-4052 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1998-4057 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/a7de44debfd847ed8b47d4fda298ceb2  |z Connect to this object online.