Publication: Finite Element Analysis of Anterior Implant-Supported Restorations with Different CAD-CAM Restorative Materials
0
0
Issued Date
2024-05-14
Resource Type
ISSN
13057456
eISSN
13057464
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85193638744
Journal Title
European Journal of Dentistry
Volume
19
Issue
1
Start Page
37
End Page
47
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
European Journal of Dentistry Vol.19 No.1 (2024) , 37-47
Suggested Citation
Puengpaiboon U., Rattanapan N., Pasam V.K., Sukjamsri C. Finite Element Analysis of Anterior Implant-Supported Restorations with Different CAD-CAM Restorative Materials. European Journal of Dentistry Vol.19 No.1 (2024) , 37-47. 47. doi:10.1055/s-0044-1785532 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/20740
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objectives Due to the lack of literature concerning the selection of crown materials for the restoration of anterior teeth, this study aimed to investigate the effects of six distinct computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) crown materials on stress and strain distribution within implant-supported maxillary central incisor restorations, employing finite element analysis (FEA). Furthermore, a comparative analysis was conducted between models that incorporated adjacent natural teeth and those that did not, intending to guide the selection of the most suitable modeling approach. Materials and Methods Crown materials, including Lava Ultimate, Enamic, Emax CAD, Suprinity, Celtra Duo, and Cercon xt ML, were the subjects of the investigation. FEA models incorporating Coulomb friction were developed. These models were subjected to an oblique load, simulating the average maximum bite force experienced by anterior teeth. The potential for failure in titanium implant components and the prosthesis crown was evaluated through von Mises and principal stress, respectively. Furthermore, the failure of crestal bone was assessed through principal strain values. Statistical Analysis Stress values for each implant component and strain values of the bone were extracted from the models. To assess the impact of the six groups of crown materials, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance and post-hoc comparisons were conducted. Additionally, a statistical comparison between the two groups with Lava Ultimate and Cercon xt ML was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine the difference in the two modeling approaches. Results Higher crown material stiffness led to decreased stress in the abutment, fixture, and retaining screw, along with reduced strain in the surrounding bone. However, the decrease in stress and strain values became less significant with increasing crown stiffness. Additionally, the model with adjacent teeth showed significantly lower stress and strain concentrations compared to the model without adjacent teeth. Conclusion Crowns with a high elastic modulus were the optimal choice for anterior teeth restoration. Constructing FEA models with adjacent teeth was highly recommended to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanical behavior of dental implant restorations.