Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1178  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1591-1596  

Analysis of stress distribution on the bone around an implant placed in the anterior maxilla using three different abutment angulations by means of finite element analysis


1 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Tatyasaheb Kore Dental College and Research Centre, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Deemed to be University, Karad, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saraswati Dhanwantari Dental College, MUHS, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
5 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Deemed to be University, Karad, Maharashtra, India
6 Director of Muskan Dental Clinic, Amravati, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission31-Mar-2021
Date of Decision18-Apr-2021
Date of Acceptance01-May-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Snehal Shende
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Tatyasaheb Kore Dental College and Research Centre, Kolhapur, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_305_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Aim: the aim of the study was to study the effect of stress distribution on the bone around an implant using angled abutments by means of finite element analysis in the anterior maxillary region. Materials and Methods: A three-dimensional (3D) model of the of patient's maxilla of right central incisor: tooth, bone, crown, implant, and abutment system were used in this study. The models were designed for three situations with straight abutment, i.e. 0°, 15°, and 20° angled abutment. The load of 178N was applied on the cingulum area of the prosthesis at an angle of 130° in relationship with the long axis of the implant. After applying the static loads on each model, the stress generated in the bone and the implant was recorded. The results will be analyzed by analysis of variance test. Results: The cortical and cancellous on Mises stresses in 20° abutment model were found to be maximum as compared to 15° abutment followed by 0° abutment. The stress was concentrated in the implant-abutment joint area. The overall stresses in 20° abutment model were found to more than 15° abutment followed by 0° abutment. The magnitude of stresses increased as the angulations increased. Conclusion: From the conclusions of this study, the stress is more multiplied in angled abutments, hence care needs to be taken when restoring implants using angled abutments, especially in patients with heavy masticatory load or when planning for cantilevering of restorations in these angled implant restoration.

Keywords: Abutment, cancellous bone, cortical bone, finite element analysis, implant, Von Mises stresses


How to cite this article:
Shende S, Jadhav A, Edake DN, Patil AH, Patil H, Agrawal N. Analysis of stress distribution on the bone around an implant placed in the anterior maxilla using three different abutment angulations by means of finite element analysis. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S2:1591-6

How to cite this URL:
Shende S, Jadhav A, Edake DN, Patil AH, Patil H, Agrawal N. Analysis of stress distribution on the bone around an implant placed in the anterior maxilla using three different abutment angulations by means of finite element analysis. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 13];13, Suppl S2:1591-6. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/6/1591/330081




   Introduction Top


Clinicians have long sought to provide their patients with an artificial analog of the natural teeth and a wide variety of materials and techniques have been used for this. However, it has not been possible to replicate the periodontal tissues, and alternative strategies have therefore been adopted. Dental implants have been proven to be an effective way of restoring the masticatory ability of completely or partially edentulous patients.[1] A dental implant restores a lost tooth so that it looks, feels, fits, and functions like a natural tooth. These have been based on the principles of creating and maintaining an interface between the implant and the surrounding bone, which is capable of load transmission, associated with healthy adjacent tissues, predictable in outcome, and with a high success rate.[2]

It was observed that implants placed in the anterior mandible of humans had a high success rate. Lower survival rates were observed for implants placed in the anterior maxilla.[3] When teeth are lost in the anterior maxilla, the pattern of bone loss cannot be accurately predicted. This change in bone morphology often dictates the placement of implants with the long axis in different and exaggerated angulations to satisfy space and esthetic needs.[3] When clinicians deal with undesirable implant orientation caused by poor bone conditions, dental implants are not placed parallel to adjacent teeth or contiguous implants, the clinician can use angled abutments in order to achieve proper restorative contours.[4]

The use of angled abutments facilitates paralleling nonaligned implants, thereby making prosthesis fabrication easier. These abutments also can aid the clinician in avoiding anatomical structures when placing the implants.[4] However, increased stress on bone has been thought to be associated with the use of angled abutments.

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a computer simulation technique used to assess stresses and strains placed on solid objects which involves a numerical approximation of physical properties.[4] Vertical and transverse loads from mastication induce axial forces and bending moments and result in stress gradients in the implant as well as in the bone. FEA allows researchers to predict stress distribution in the contact area of the implants with cortical bone and around the apex of the implants in trabecular bone.[5] It also helps in evaluating a qualitative solution of the interaction between prosthesis, implant, and surrounding bone. The finite element method (FEM) can present possible changes in shape, based on stress and strain values when the specific material properties, the forces applied, and the boundary conditions are predetermined.[6] Hence, effect of stress distribution on the bone around an implant using angled abutments by means of FEA in the anterior maxilla is the ultimate aim of the study.


   Materials and Methods Top


A three-dimensional (3D) model of the of patient's maxilla of right central incisor: tooth, bone, crown, implant, and abutment system were used in this study. The analytic model used in this study was developed using reverse engineering technique, i.e. extracting the dimensional details of the physical parts using precision measuring instruments using ANSYS 12.1.0 software (ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA, USA). In the present study, the cortical bone for the maxilla was modeled as a 0.5-mm layer, which better represents a clinical situation. A three-dimensional finite element models will be designed using ANSYS 12.1 software. E-max crowns were used in the study along with the zirconia abutment as they are esthetically superior than the other restorative options in the anterior region. Most commonly used implant diameter 3.5 mm was used. The models were designed for three situations with straight abutment, i.e. 0°, 15°, and 20° angled abutment. [Figure 1], [Figure 2] and [Figure 3] A conical, square thread implant was created. When the geometry of model was complete, a specialized mesh generation procedure was used to discretize the model. The 3D finite element model corresponding to the geometric model was meshed using hypermesh software (ANSYS 12.1 version software). The load of 178N was applied on the cingulum area of the prosthesis at an angle of 130° in relationship with the long axis of the implant. After applying the static loads on each model, the stress generated in the bone, and the implant was recorded. The results will be analyzed by analysis of variance test.
Figure 1: The stress distribution after application of load in 0° abutment model in the central incisor region

Click here to view
Figure 2: The stress distribution after application of load in 15° abutment model in the central incisor region

Click here to view
Figure 3: The stress distribution after application of load in 20° abutment model in the central incisor region

Click here to view



   Results Top


Stress distribution pattern generated in the FE models comes in numerical values and in color coding. Maximum values of Von Mises stress is denoted by red color and minimum value by blue color. In between the values are represented by bluish green, green, greenish yellow, and yellowish red in the ascending order of stress distribution [Graph 1]. The color plots obtained were studied and the maximum Von Mises stresses were noted and tabulated for each condition [Table 1].

Table 1: The values of von Mises stress in implant, abutment, cortical, and cancellous bone in 0° abutment, 15° abutment, 20° abutment after application of loads

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The long-term success of prosthesis depends on the osseointegrated fixtures, anatomical conditions of the implant site, the surgical technique, osseointegration, and the distribution of forces during the function. Diameter, length, position, and number of implants have significant effects in the stress distribution on the prosthetic superstructure, on the implant components, and on the supporting bone.[2]

The major factor leading to late failure of implant is inappropriate selection of implants and lack of understanding of biomechanical concepts. It was observed that implants placed in the anterior mandible of humans had a high success rate. Lower survival rates were observed for implants placed in the anterior maxilla. When teeth are lost in the anterior maxilla, the pattern of bone loss cannot be accurately predicted. This change in bone morphology often dictates placement of implants with the long axis in different and exaggerated angulations to satisfy space and esthetic needs.[3] Gelb and Lazzara stated in their study that the use of preangulated abutments should be the treatment of choice when anatomic limitations preclude the axial placement of an implant in using the angled abutment.[7]

In the current study, the most frequently used implant and angled abutments in the clinical practice in anterior maxilla are used to study the stress distribution in bone around these implants. Thus, the implants of different angled abutments are compared in this FEA study.

Today, FEA enjoys a position of predominance among the computational methods to occur in this century. Most of the practical problems are solved by numerical methods, which provide approximate but acceptable solutions. With the advent of computers, one of the most powerful techniques that has emerged from the realm of engineering analysis is the FEM. The method can be used for the analysis of structures that are solid of complex shapes and complicated boundary conditions. The basic concept of FEA is differentiation of a structure into finite number of elements, connected at finite number of points called nodes. The material properties and the governing relationships are considered over these elements and expressed in terms of nodal displacement at nodes. A structure is broken down into many small simple blocks or elements that can be described with a relatively simple set of equations. Just as the set of elements would be joined together to build the whole structure, the equations describing the behaviors of the individual elements are joined into an extremely large set of equations that describe the behavior of the whole structure.[8]

A section of patient's maxilla of right central incisor (a three-dimensional model of bone) region was generated. Several authors have reviewed the literature on FE analysis of dental implants[8],[9],[10] and stressed the importance of modeling bone as an anisotropic material. Clelland et al.[11] created a 3D model of the anterior maxilla with a 1.5- and 3.0-mm-thick cortical layer with isotropic characteristics, which does not represent type 3 bone with a thin cortical layer. In the present study, the cortical bone for the maxilla was modeled as a 0.5-mm layer, which better represents a clinical situation.

The interincisal mean angle used in this study was 130°. Schaeffer assumed that the force applied to the palatal surface of the maxillary prosthesis would be parallel to the long axis of the mandibular incisor. Therefore, the load applied on the cingulum area of the prosthesis had an angle of 130° in relationship with the long axis of the implant.[12] The magnitude of the force of 178 N used was also within the range of mean values reported in the literature.[3],[13],[14] After applying the static loads on each model, the stress generated in the bone and the implant was recorded.

Papavasiliou et al.[15] also concluded that the stresses were concentrated more toward cortical bone in his study. When the bite force is applied to an angled abutment, as abutment angle increases, the stress generated in bone increased and appeared to have been concentrated in certain areas, mainly the cortical area of the crestal bone. Compared to the stress transferred through a 0° abutment (straight), the Von Mises stress resultant from implant loading were 12% and 18% greater for abutment angles of 15° and 25°, respectively. Vertical abutment model showed that the load was evenly distributed on the buccal and lingual surfaces of implant, whereas in an angled abutment model, the loads did not travel along the long axis of implant.[3] Brosh et al.[16] attached strain gauges to implant surfaces and embedded these implants in photoelastic acrylic resins to investigate stress transfer from angled abutments. It concluded that only an 11% increase in shear stress detected when the abutment angulations were increased from 0° to 25°, very much similar to the findings of the present study and also the findings of other relevant studies in the literature.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[14]

Hsu et al.[1] in his study concluded that, when off-axis loading is applied to an implant, the magnitude of the stress will be increased three times or more.

In the present study, the resulting stresses were mainly concentrated within the cortical bone on the crest of the alveolar ridge, similar to the findings of Kao et al.[17] It is important to mention that similar conclusions of several studies regarding the location of the maximum stresses exactly on the cortical layer[15],[16],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] may be closely related to the material properties assigned to the bone model.[8]

Models of the mandible or maxilla that have a cancellous core with a Young's modulus an order of magnitude less than that of the cortical layer may behave as if the implants were only supported by cortical bone.[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29] Cortical bone would absorb most of the stresses, while the reaction forces of the cancellous bone upon the loaded implant would be underestimated. By assigning to the cortical and cancellous bones properties that are not so different, it can be seen that the highest strains observed on the bone are at the coronal third of the implant-bone interface. However, they are not limited to the cortical layer; they are also shared with the cancellous core.[3]

In the present study, all three models have shown that the maximum stress was at the bone-implant interface at the level of cortical bone. This is due to stress concentration at interface as there was a significant difference in modulus of adjacent materials. It was also found that there was less stress in the apical region of the implant and that can be explained in a way that the amount of bone directly in contact with the apical surface of a loaded implant was much less than that of remaining part of the implant, and hence the apical region of the implant within the cancellous bone had little stress-induced stimulation.[23]

Clelland et al.[11] loaded differently angled abutments in the anterior maxilla. The authors applied a masticatory force along the long axis of the abutments tested. That force direction would simulate a clinical situation, in which the incisors are in an edge-to-edge position. Since masticatory forces decrease significantly when the mandible is in an eccentric position and there is complete disocclusion of all molars, the magnitude of the results may be overestimated.

Applying the load near the cingulum area with a buccal apical direction simulates a clinical situation, in which the mandibular incisors close on the lingual surfaces of the maxillary incisors, with the mandible near centric occlusion. It also creates a better condition to assess the behavior of implants in the anterior maxilla. Although the load was directed at a greater angle with relation to the direction of the implant, it was observed that most deformation on the bone was still within the physiologic limits proposed in the literature.[30]

The result of FE simulations revealed that the von Mises stress mainly concentrated on the buccal and lingual surfaces of cortical bone around the implant neck with oblique loading at an angle of 130°. Results reported by some literature based on complete osseointegration on the implant–bone interface are very similar to our data. Several authors using FEA have found that the highest risk of bone resorption occurs in the neck region of an implant.[24],[31] The stresses were concentrated in the cortical bone around the implant neck, which is probably due to the fact that the elastic modulus of cortical bone is higher than cancellous bone and that cortical bone is much stronger and more resistant to deformation.,[24],[32] The von Mises strain mainly concentrated on the buccal surface of cancellous bone adjacent to the implant neck with oblique loading at an angle of 130°. Nonaxial loading has often been related to marginal bone loss, failure of osseointegration, failure of the implant and/or the prosthetic components, and failure of the cement seal on the natural tooth if connected to natural teeth.[25],[33] It has long been recognized that both implant and bone should be stressed within a certain range for physiological homeostasis. Overload will cause bone resorption or failure of the implant, whereas bone underloading may lead to disuse atrophy and subsequent bone loss. Usually, the stress levels that actually cause biological response, such as resorption and remodeling of the bone, are not comprehensively known. Therefore, the data of stress provided from the FEA need substantiation by clinical research.[24]

Hence, by increasing the angle of the abutment of the implant selected, stresses are increasing in concentration. The data from Himmlová et al.,[33] who computed values of von Mises stress at the implant–bone interface for all variations in implant diameter using FEA, were the same as our except for where supposed implant and bone bonded completely. Maximum amount of stress concentration was observed in the cortical bone irrespective of the angulation of implant. Cortical bone plays a major role in the dissipation of the stress. There was favorable distribution of stress and strain pattern during oblique loading. Therefore, successful long-term results will be achieved in the selection of 130° angled abutment and 3.5 mm diameter implant in favorable clinical situations.

Within the limitations of the present study and on the basis of results obtained, it can be summarized that the cortical and cancellous von Mises stresses in 20° abutment model were found to be maximum as compared to 15° abutment followed by 0° abutment. The stress was concentrated in the cervical region of bone. The implant von Mises stresses in 20° abutment model were found to be maximum as compared to 15° abutment followed by 0° abutment. The stress was concentrated in the implant-abutment joint area. The overall stresses in 20° abutment model were found to be maximum as compared to 15° abutment followed by 0° abutment. The magnitude of stresses increased as the angulations increased.


   Conclusion Top


From the conclusions of this study, the stress is more multiplied in angled abutments; hence, care needs to be taken when restoring implants using angled abutments, especially in patients with heavy masticatory load or when planning for cantilevering of restorations in these angled implant restoration.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Hsu ML, Chung TF, Kao HC. Clinical applications of angled abutments- A literature review. Chin Dent J 2005;24:15-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Hobkirk JA, Watson RM, Searson LJ. Introducing Dental Implants. 1st ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2003.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Saab XE, Griggs JA, Powers JM, Engelmeier RL. Effect of abutment angulation on the strain on the bone around an implant in the anterior maxilla: A finite element study. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:85-92.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Cavallaro J Jr., Greenstein G. Angled implant abutments: A practical application of available knowledge. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:150-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-98.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Balik A, Karatas MO, Keskin H. Effects of different abutment connection designs on the stress distribution around five different implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:491-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kallus T, Henry P, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Clinical evaluation of angulated abutments for the Brånemark system: A pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:39-45.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Meijer HJ, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJ, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: Influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:96-102.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Clelland NL, Gilat A, McGlumphy EA, Brantley WA. A photoelastic and strain gauge analysis of angled abutments for an implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:541-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Schaeffer A. Behavior of the axis of human incisor teeth during growth. Angle Orthodont 1949;19:254-75.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Hellsing G. On the regulation of interincisor bite force in man. J Oral Rehabil 1980;7:403-11.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Helkimo E, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M. Bite force and state of dentition. Acta Odontol Scand 1977;35:297-303.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. 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;76:633-40.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Brosh T, Pilo R, Sudai D. The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: Comparison between two experimental techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:328-34.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Kao HC, Gung YW, Chung TF, Hsu ML. The influence of abutment angulation on micromotion level for immediately loaded dental implants: A 3-D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:623-30.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Gelb DA, Lazzara RJ. Hierarchy of objectives in implant placement to maximize esthetics: Use of pre-angulated abutments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993;13:277-87.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Benzing UR, Gall H, Weber H. Biomechanical aspects of two different implant-prosthetic concepts for edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:188-98.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Clelland NL, Lee JK, Bimbenet OC, Brantley WA. A three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of angled abutments for an implant placed in the anterior maxilla. J Prosthodont 1995;4:95-100.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Canay S, Hersek N, Akpinar I, Aşik Z. Comparison of stress distribution around vertical and angled implants with finite-element analysis. Quintessence Int 1996;27:591-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Korioth TW, Versluis A. Modeling the mechanical behavior of the jaws and their related structures by finite element (FE) analysis. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997;8:90-104.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:329-36.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Geramy A, Morgano SM. Finite element analysis of three designs of an implant-supported molar crown. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:434-40.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ueda C, Markarian RA, Sendyk CL, Laganá DC. Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution on parallel and angled implants after installation of fixed prostheses. Braz Oral Res 2004;18:45-52.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kiliçarslan MA, Eskitascioglu G. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:227-34.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Simşek B, Erkmen E, Yilmaz D, Eser A. Effects of different inter-implant distances on the stress distribution around endosseous implants in posterior mandible: A 3D finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 2006;28:199-213.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Hsu ML, Chen FC, Kao HC, Cheng CK. Influence of off-axis loading of an anterior maxillary implant: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:301-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Quaresma SE, Cury PR, Sendyk WR, Sendyk C. A finite element analysis of two different dental implants: Stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Patra AK, DePaolo JM, D'Souza KS, DeTolla D, Meenaghan MA. Guidelines for analysis and redesign of dental implants. Implant Dent 1998;7:355-68.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Sethi A, Kaus T, Sochor P. The use of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: Five-year clinical results of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:801-10.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Mellal A, Wiskott HW, Botsis J, Scherrer SS, Belser UC. Stimulating effect of implant loading on surrounding bone. Comparison of three numerical models and validation by in vivo data. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:239-48.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Himmlová L, Dostálová T, Kácovský A, Konvicková S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: A finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20-5.  Back to cited text no. 33
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed324    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded48    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal