Design and validation of a short-implant rehabilitation model

SOCIEDADE PORTUGUESA DE ESTOMATOLOGIA E MEDICINA DENTÁRIA

Pub.: Rev Port Estomatol-Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2017;58(2):79-90

 

Design and validation of a short-implant
rehabilitation model

 

José Joaquim da Rocha Ferreira, José Manuel Oliveira, Santiago D. Castellanos, André Correia, Ana Rosanete Reis

 

Abstract

Objectives: This research intended to develop and validate a digital model that could be used to study the stresses and strains created in the different components involved in oral fixed rehabilitations with short implants. The validated model was then used to simulate a clinical-like situation.

Methods: A digital model was created considering the posterior areas of the mandible. Its materialization obtained ten specimens of the experimental prototype. Seven of them were static compressive tested until failure and, for the other three, the tests were progressively interrupted, to allow the establishment of a damage sequence. On the numerical model a finite element analysis was performed with Abaqus software, under similar conditions to the experimental situation.

Results: The stress pattern on the FEA and the failure location on the static test were similar. The sequence in which each part reached the yield strength was the same as that observed on the interrupted static test (resin, prosthetic framework, implants and implant screws, in this order). Due to these results, the model was considered valid. A clinical-like simulation with the validated model showed that buccal cortical bone, around the implants platform, is the weakest part of such a rehabilitation.

Conclusions: This research allowed the development and validation of a computer-aided design model that can be used to study an oral fixed rehabilitation supported by short implants. For clinical purposes, it is important to refer that the highest stress and strain values were found on the cortical bone around the buccal aspect of the implants. (Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2017;58(2):79-90)