Strain transfer behavior of different planning options for mandibular single-molar replacement
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 1, 2026
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
Eduardo Bortolas de Carvalho1, Paulo Eduardo Herbst1, Adriana Cláudia Lapria Faria2
1Private practice, Latin American Institute for Dental Research and Education, Curitiba, Brazil.
Statement Of Problem:
The loss of the first molar and second premolar could lead to mesial movement of the second molar, thus limiting the restoration space for the 2 missing teeth. Placement of a larger first molar is a common choice, but the best implant number and position option remain controversial.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to test different planning options for replacing the mandibular first molar.
Material And Methods:
Two polyoxymethylene models simulated first molar edentulous spaces of 11 mm (conventional size first molar: control group) and 14 mm (enlarged first molar: all remaining groups other than control). Models included acrylic resin replicas of a first and second premolar, a second molar, and the first molar edentulous space. The following groups were established: control (CO), ø3.5-mm center implant; center implant (CI), ø3.5 mm; mesial implant (MI), ø3.5 mm; distal implant (DI), ø3.5 mm; center implant (WI), ø5.0; 2 implants (2I), 2 ø3.5-mm implants. Three Co-Cr molar crowns were fabricated for each group by using a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technique. Model surface strains under a 250-N first molar load were calculated by 3-dimensional digital image correlation. Three regions of interest below the first molar were selected for comparison among groups. A test for unequal variances and a follow-up Welch ANOVA were used for statistical analysis (α=.05).
Results:
The highest strains were found when the first molar was restored by using a 5.0-mm-wide implant (P<.05). Region of interest 1 showed that two 3.5-mm implants replacing the lost molar showed strain distribution similar to that of only one 3.5-mm implant (P>.05). Mesial and distal placement of the implant showed more neutral strain results than other restoration options (P<.05).
Conclusions:
Two small-diameter implants in an increased edentulous space show more optimized surface strain behavior than a single wide-diameter implant. However, a single 3.5-mm implant also showed reduced strains in the restoration of the same edentulous space.
