| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2023 | Volume
: 20
| Issue : 1 | Page : 62 |
|
|
Stress analysis in implant, abutment, and peripheral bone with different restorative crown and abutment materials: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study
Sapna Rani1, Nandini Jain2, Swagat Laxmi Barua3, Simran Idnani4, Nitin Kaushik4
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Manav Rachna Dental College, Faridabad, Haryana, India
2 Private Practitioner, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, I.P College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics, ITS-CDSR, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sapna Rani
House No. 2062, Sec 7D, Faridabad - 121 006, Haryana
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.377582
|
|
|
Background: Stresses on prosthetic crown directly influences the survival rate of implants hence it should be considered while selecting prosthetic material.
The aim of the study is to evaluate stress analysis on implant, abutment and peripheral bone with change in different abutment and different crown materials by 3D finite element study.
Materials and Methods: A numerical procedure based on finite element method was adopted to investigate the influence of different prosthetic materials and abutment materials on stress situation. Eight different three-dimensional (3D) models of a bone-level implant system and an abutment were created by using the standard tessellation language (STL) data of original implant components. Combinations included of abutment materials i.e., Titanium (Ti), Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), Polymer infilterated hybrid ceramic (TZI) along with different restoration materials Monolithic Zirconia (MZ) and lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e-max). In each model, the implants were loaded obliquely (150 N). The stress distribution in the implant, Abutment and peripheral bone was evaluated through the von Mises stress analysis.
Results: Higher stresses were found on neck of implants irrespective of abutment material and restorative material. Highest stress was found with PEEK material. The pattern of stress distribution in implant and peripheral bone was similar in all models.
Conclusion: There is no difference in stresses with the change in restorative material but the change in abutment material has effect on stresses on implants.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
