Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
Published on: July 15, 2009
Influence of Implant Location, Number, and Design in Ischemic Zone for Implant Prosthesis Success Rate: A Comparative
Arshad J Sayed1,2, Kamlesh K Garg3, Sasankoti R Mohan4
1Dentistry, Pacific Academy of Higher Education, Udaipur, IND.
Background:
The performance of an implant-supported prosthesis depends on the implant type, number, implant location, and prosthesis design which is directly associated with the distribution of the occlusal forces during mastication. The purpose of the present study is to analyze with three-dimensional (3D) finite element comparative analysis, the influence of implant location, number, and prosthesis design in the mandibular posterior region where multiple posterior teeth replacement is indicated, which in turn is associated with the longevity or Implant success rate.
Material And Methods:
Mandibular posterior section, where 4 teeth are missing, based on the space available for implants and following the surgical guide instructions, a standard make four implants (1st and 2nd premolars {3.8 mm × 11.5 mm}, 1st and 2nd molar {5.1 mm × 11.5 mm}) were selected and with standardization for placement, 4 groups were created with different implant location, number and prosthesis design from the selected implants as model FM1, FM2, FM3, FM4. Finite element analysis was carried out using ANSYS software, version 14.5 (ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA) for assessment of stress, strain, and deformation around implant and bone.
Results:
Maximum von Mises stress on vertical loading was highest for FM4 (139.55MPa) model (center of prosthesis on premolar and molar pontics) and lowest for FM3 (53.65MPa) model (on 2nd premolar pontic) with values in decreasing order as FM4 ˃ FM2 ˃ FM1 ˃ FM3. Maximum von Mises stress on oblique loading was highest at the distal of 1st molar implant pontic for FM2 (539.81MPa) and lowest at the 2nd premolar pontic for FM3 (352.48MPa) model with values as FM2˃FM1˃FM4˃FM3. Deformation for vertical and oblique loading was observed minimum at the buccal cusp and buccal crestal bone of 2nd premolar, 1st molar on FM3 model against highest deformation on buccal and lingual crestal bone, cuspal area of 2nd premolar, 1st molar implants. For oblique loading minimum deformation was seen for the 2nd premolar, 1st molar cuspal area in FM3, and maximum at the 2nd premolar region in FM1.
Conclusion:
Four single implants may be chosen if there is enough mesiodistal and buccolingual space to allow for a minimum inter-implant and inter-implant-tooth distance that can be maintained while putting the least amount of stress on the implants and bone. To reduce stress on the bone and implants, it is best to avoid long-span implant-supported prostheses when using fixed implant-supported prostheses.
