Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 22, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Photoelastic stress analysis of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by 3 dental implants
Paulo Cézar Simamoto Júnior1, João Paulo da Silva-Neto, Veridiana Resende Novais
1*Adjunct Professor, Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prostheses, and Dental materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil. †Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil. ‡Adjunct Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil. §Titular Professor, Piracicaba Dental School, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil. ‖Associate Professor, Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prostheses, and Dental materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil. ¶Professor, Mechanical Projects Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering School, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil.
Purpose:
To observe the photoelastic stress patterns generated around implants in relation to variations in the diameter and total number of implants supporting fixed complete-arch mandibular frameworks.
Materials And Methods:
Three different implant configurations were analyzed (n = 3): 5 standard implants with diameters of 3.75 mm (C), 3 standard implants with diameters of 3.75 mm (3S), and 3 wide implants with diameters of 5.0 mm (3W). The samples were subjected to a vertical compressive load (1.33 kgf) applied at the end of the distal cantilever of the framework. The shear stresses were calculated around the implants, and the data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance.
Results:
The implants nearest to the loading showed higher stress values regardless of the group. The C group showed lower shear stress when compared with the other groups (P = 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the 3W and 3S groups (P = 0.785).
Conclusion:
A reduction in the number of implants, regardless of the implant diameter, showed higher stress concentration around the implants. Five-implant configuration showed lower stress concentration and seems to be more biomechanically predictable.
More Related Videos
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
07:09In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
Published on: March 7, 2014