Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained Vs. Cementless Screw-Retained

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2021 Jun 2

PMID 34069608

Citations 3

Authors

Jae-Hyun Lee

Ho Yeol Jang

Su Young Lee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The present study was designed to compare the stress distributions in two restoration types of implants and the surrounding bone. The first restoration type was a conventional cement-retained zirconia crown, and the second was a novel cementless screw-retained zirconia crown with a base abutment. A three-dimensional finite element method was used to model the implants, restorations, and supporting bone. A comparative study of the two implants was performed under two masticatory loads: a vertical load of 100 N and a 30-degree oblique load of 100 N. Under both loading conditions, the maximum von Mises stress and strain values in the implant and supporting bone were higher in the conventional cement-retained restoration model than in the cementless screw-retained model. In terms of stress distribution, the cementless screw-retained zirconia crown with base abutment may be considered a superior restoration option compared to the conventional cement-retained zirconia crown.

Citing Articles

Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of Novel Screwless Retained Dental Implant Prosthesis: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.

Lee K, Kim J, Lim J, Ryu J J Funct Biomater. 2025; 16(2).

PMID: 39997573 PMC: 11856067. DOI: 10.3390/jfb16020039.

The Influence of Cement Thickness within the Cap on Stress Distribution for Dental Implants.

Ceddia M, Romasco T, Comuzzi L, Cipollina A, Piattelli A, Dipalma G J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(7).

PMID: 39057320 PMC: 11278485. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15070199.

Clinical challenges of biomechanical performance of narrow-diameter implants in maxillary posterior teeth in aging patients: A finite element analysis.

Prasitwuttisak S, Chantarapanich N, Apinyauppatham K, Poomparnich K, Inglam S PLoS One. 2024; 19(3):e0299816.

PMID: 38527030 PMC: 10962792. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299816.

Stress Concentration of Endodontically Treated Molars Restored with Transfixed Glass Fiber Post: 3D-Finite Element Analysis.

Borges A, Grangeiro M, Andrade G, de Melo R, Baroudi K, Silva-Concilio L Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(15).

PMID: 34361443 PMC: 8347937. DOI: 10.3390/ma14154249.

References

Qian L, Todo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K . Effects of implant diameter, insertion depth, and loading angle on stress/strain fields in implant/jawbone systems: finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24(5):877-86. View

Gomes E, Assuncao W, Tabata L, Ricardo Barao V, Delben J, de Sousa E . Effect of passive fit absence in the prosthesis/implant/retaining screw system: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2009; 20(6):2000-5. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181bd2df8. View

Michalakis K, Hirayama H, Garefis P . Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(5):719-28. View

Pierrisnard L, Hure G, Barquins M, Chappard D . Two dental implants designed for immediate loading: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17(3):353-62. View

Denry I, Kelly J . State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater. 2007; 24(3):299-307. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.007. View

Aalaei S, Rajabi Naraki Z, Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Shahrokhi Rad A . Stress distribution pattern of screw-retained restorations with segmented vs. non-segmented abutments: A finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2017; 11(3):149-155. PMC: 5666213. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2017.027. View

Cervino G, Romeo U, Lauritano F, Bramanti E, Fiorillo L, DAmico C . Fem and Von Mises Analysis of OSSTEM Dental Implant Structural Components: Evaluation of Different Direction Dynamic Loads. Open Dent J. 2018; 12:219-229. PMC: 5885472. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010219. View

Pellizzer E, Falcon-Antenucci R, Carvalho P, Sanchez D, Rinaldi G, de Aguirre C . Influence of implant angulation with different crowns on stress distribution. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22(2):434-7. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318207477c. View

Ochiai K, Ozawa S, Caputo A, Nishimura R . Photoelastic stress analysis of implant-tooth connected prostheses with segmented and nonsegmented abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89(5):495-502. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00167-7. View

10.

Rangert B, Gunne J, Glantz P, Svensson A . Vertical load distribution on a three-unit prosthesis supported by a natural tooth and a single Brånemark implant. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6(1):40-6. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060105.x. View

11.

Lee J, Kim S, Han J, Yeo I, Yoon H . Optical and Surface Properties of Monolithic Zirconia after Simulated Toothbrushing. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12(7). PMC: 6480371. DOI: 10.3390/ma12071158. View

12.

Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, Tsuga K, Akagawa Y . A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region. J Oral Rehabil. 2000; 27(1):15-21. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00475.x. View

13.

Guichet D, Caputo A, Choi H, Sorensen J . Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(2):239-46. View

14.

Anitua E, Orive G . Finite element analysis of the influence of the offset placement of an implant-supported prosthesis on bone stress distribution. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008; 89(2):275-281. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31213. View

15.

Siadat H, Hashemzadeh S, Geramy A, Bassir S, Alikhasi M . Effect of Offset Implant Placement on the Stress Distribution Around a Dental Implant: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2014; 41(6):646-51. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00163. View

16.

Lee J, Yang S, Lee J, Lee S . Influence of Luting Materials and Methods and the Restoration Surface on the Amount of Cement Remnants in Implant Restorations. J Oral Implantol. 2019; 45(4):301-307. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00283. View

17.

Petrie C, Williams J . Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16(4):486-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01132.x. View

18.

Chee W, Jivraj S . Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J. 2006; 201(8):501-507. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157. View

19.

Dogus S, Kurtz K, Watanabe I, Griggs J . Effect of engaging abutment position in implant-borne, screw-retained three-unit fixed cantilevered prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2011; 20(5):348-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00714.x. View

20.

Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G . FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014; 7(4):817-25. PMC: 4057829. View