Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 30, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
The Effects of Frontal Trauma on 4 Interforaminal Dental Implants: A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis Comparing
Stefan Krennmair1, Philipp Winterhalder2, Stefan Hunger3
1Research Fellow, NumBioLab, Department of Orthodontics, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Purpose:
With increased implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation for mandibular edentulism together with the increased life expectancy and activity of the elderly population, a greater number of implant patients may be at risk of facial trauma. The aim of this 3-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) was to evaluate the biomechanical effects of the edentulous mandible (EM) with and without implants exposed to frontal facial trauma including assessment of the fracture risk of different mandibular areas.
Materials And Methods:
By use of a 3D FEA, our experimental study design comprised 3 different models (model A, EM; model B, EM with 4 unsplinted interforaminal implants; and model C, EM with 4 splinted interforaminal implants) exposed to application of symphyseal frontal trauma of 2 MPa. In 3 defined regions of interest (ROIs) (ROI 1, symphyseal area; ROI 2, mental foraminal area; and ROI 3, condylar neck), the effective stress was measured at predefined sites in the superficial cortical mandibular area. The stress values of all ROIs evaluated were compared within each model (intramodel) as well as between the 3 models (intermodel).
Results:
For all models evaluated, a frontal traumatic load generated the highest stress levels in the condylar neck. However, for both models with implants (models B and C), the stress values were reduced significantly (P < .01) in the condylar neck region (ROI 3) but increased significantly (P < .001) in the mental foraminal area (ROI 2) compared with the EM model without implants. For the symphyseal area (ROI 1) evaluated, the unsplinted 4-implant model (model B) presented significantly (P < .001) higher stress values than the splinted implant model (model C) when frontal forces were applied.
Conclusions:
Regardless of splinting or lack of splinting of 4 interforaminal implants, force absorption or transmission may shift the predominant risk factor from the condylar neck to the corpus or foramen mandibulae. However, splinting of 4 interforaminal implants may be beneficial in reducing the risk of bone fracture by providing protection for anterior risk situations.
