Biomechanical Analysis of Maxillary Posterior Three Unit Bridge Supported Misial Straight Implant and Distal Tilted Implant

Overview

Journal Front Bioeng Biotechnol

Date 2025 Mar 12

PMID 40070548

Authors

Guanqi Liu

Shudan Deng

Xiaoyan Chen

Jiahui Lin

Runheng Liu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the stress distribution in bone tissue, implant, abutment, screw, and bridge restoration when the mesial implant is placed axially and the distal implant is inserted at varying angles in the posterior maxillary region with free-end partial dentition defects, using three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Materials And Methods: Cone-beam computed-tomography were utilized to create 3D reconstruction models of the maxilla. Stereolithography data of dental implants and accessories were used to design a three-unit full zirconia bridge for the maxillary model. The 3D models were imported into ANSYS Workbench 23.0 software for mesh generation and material property definition. Five different distal implant implantation directions were designed: Inner Tilting 30° group, Inner Tilting 17° group, Parallel group, External Tilting 17° group, and External Tilting 30° group. The models consisted of cortical bone, trabecular bone, implants, abutments, central screws, prosthesis screws, and prostheses. Material properties were assumed to be isotropic, homogeneous, and linearly elastic. The maxillary models were subjected to strict fixation restrictions, and the implants were considered fully osseointegrated. Two loading types were set in ANSYS Workbench 23.0: a vertical load of 300N and a lateral load of 300N at a 45°angle to the implant.

Results: Under vertical loading, the parallel group exhibited the lowest maximum stress across all implants, crowns, abutments and screws. Greater tilt angles increased abutment stress, with the external tilting 30° group reaching 1,426 MPa (close to titanium alloy's yield strength). Smaller angles of both external tilting and inner tilting shifted stress to implants from abutment and screw. During lateral loading, the external tilting 30° group showed catastrophic stress escalation (abutment: 8,612 MPa), exceeding titanium's yield limit. Bone stress remained physiological except for the internal tilting 30° group under lateral loading (142 MPa).

Conclusion: The parallel group demonstrated the least stress accumulation in all components and bone tissues. Internal tilting of the distal implant is biomechanically preferable to external tilting, and a smaller tilt angle is recommended when external tilting is necessary. This study provides valuable reference data for optimizing implant angulation in patients with the loss of three posterior maxillary teeth, potentially reducing long-term complications associated with implant-fixed bridges.

References

Ozan O, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S . Biomechanical Comparison of Different Implant Inclinations and Cantilever Lengths in All-on-4 Treatment Concept by Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33(1):64-71. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6201. View

Lopez-Piriz R, Cabal B, Goyos-Ball L, Fernandez A, Bartolome J, Moya J . Current state-of-the-art and future perspectives of the three main modern implant-dentistry concerns: Aesthetic requirements, mechanical properties, and peri-implantitis prevention. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2019; 107(7):1466-1475. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36661. View

Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Strasser T . Fatigue and wear behaviour of zirconia materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020; 110:103970. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103970. View

Linetskiy I, Demenko V, Linetska L, Yefremov O . Impact of annual bone loss and different bone quality on dental implant success - A finite element study. Comput Biol Med. 2017; 91:318-325. DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.09.016. View

Sadrimanesh R, Siadat H, Sadr-Eshkevari P, Monzavi A, Maurer P, Rashad A . Alveolar bone stress around implants with different abutment angulation: an FE-analysis of anterior maxilla. Implant Dent. 2012; 21(3):196-201. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31824c302e. View

Shah K, Sivaswamy V . A Literature Review on Implant Abutment Types, Materials, and Fabrication Processes. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2022; 33(1):57-66. DOI: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2022042720. View

Wong K, Hsu H, Wu S, Ho W . A Review: Design from Beta Titanium Alloys to Medium-Entropy Alloys for Biomedical Applications. Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(21). PMC: 10650816. DOI: 10.3390/ma16217046. View

Sannino G . All-on-4 concept: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2013; 41(2):163-71. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00312. View

Takaki P, Vieira M, Bommarito S . Maximum bite force analysis in different age groups. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 18(3):272-6. PMC: 4297017. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1374647. View

10.

Tsai M, Lee C, Wu A, Lei Y, Chen H, Wu Y . A Biomechanical Evaluation of Distal Tilting Implants in All-on-Four Rehabilitation with Mild Mandibular Resorption: A Finite Element Analysis Study. Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(22). PMC: 11595311. DOI: 10.3390/ma17225435. View

11.

Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M . "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5 Suppl 1:2-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x. View

12.

Gong H, Wang L, Fan Y, Zhang M, Qin L . Apparent- and Tissue-Level Yield Behaviors of L4 Vertebral Trabecular Bone and Their Associations with Microarchitectures. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015; 44(4):1204-23. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-015-1368-6. View

13.

Gao S, Jiang Y, Yao Y, Li S, Cai X . Minimally invasive techniques for lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation: small lateral window and one-stage surgery-a 2-5-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Sci. 2023; 15(1):28. PMC: 10336061. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-023-00233-4. View

14.

Liu T, Mu Z, Yu T, Wang C, Huang Y . Biomechanical comparison of implant inclinations and load times with the all-on-4 treatment concept: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2019; 22(6):585-594. DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2019.1572120. View

15.

Ibrahim C, Sameh A, Askar O . A finite element analysis study on different angle correction designs for inclined implants in All-On-Four protocol. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):331. PMC: 10938696. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04091-2. View

16.

Yu W, Li X, Ma X, Xu X . Biomechanical analysis of inclined and cantilever design with different implant framework materials in mandibular complete-arch implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127(5):783.e1-783.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.02.018. View

17.

Gumrukcu Z, Korkmaz Y . Influence of implant number, length, and tilting degree on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2017; 56(6):979-989. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-017-1737-4. View

18.

Ayali A, Altagar M, Ozan O, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S . Biomechanical comparison of the All-on-4, M-4, and V-4 techniques in an atrophic maxilla: A 3D finite element analysis. Comput Biol Med. 2020; 123:103880. DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103880. View

19.

Adolfi D, Tribst J, Borges A, Bottino M . Torque Maintenance Capacity, Vertical Misfit, Load to Failure, and Stress Concentration of Zirconia Restorations Cemented or Notched to Titanium Bases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 35(2):357-365. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7731. View

20.

Anitua E, Larrazabal Saez de Ibarra N, Morales Martin I, Saracho Rotaeche L . Influence of Implant Tilting and Length on the Biomechanics of Single-Tooth Restoration: A Finite Element Analysis in Atrophic Mandible. Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(5). PMC: 9139222. DOI: 10.3390/dj10050077. View