Comparison of Stress in Conventional Cast and Resin-Luted Implant Frameworks. A Finite Element Analysis Study

Daniela Je, Juan del Vl
{"title":"Comparison of Stress in Conventional Cast and Resin-Luted Implant Frameworks. A Finite Element Analysis Study","authors":"Daniela Je, Juan del Vl","doi":"10.31031/MRD.2019.04.000577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many articles have been published on complete-arch implant prosthesis [1,2]. Frameworks have been conventionally performed by a casting protocol in the laboratory through cast-on abutments [3]. Cast prosthesis could be cement or screw retained. Nowadays these prostheses can be made using CAD-CAM4; [4] however, an alternative way of performing these prostheses is by RCR with access channel [5,6]. This provides passive adjustment and retrievability. Passive prosthesis fit is one of the most important factors for correct implant and prostheses performance [7]. Misfit is the main problem, the product of several factors that occur during the manufacture of the cast prosthesis, such as distortion of the dental impression, distortion of the master cast, distortion during the casting [8]. For example, these can result in bone loss, loosening of the screw, and fractures [9]. In comparison, the RCR appears to have a better passive fit because the superstructure is cemented to titanium abutments, which have perfect fit, and the cement absorbs and distributes the occlusal force more efficiently [10-13]. Further maintain the retrievability due to access channel. Some studies have performed in vitro tests of RCR, single-unit implant crown [14,15], three unit [10], and complete-arch framework [6]. These demonstrated that RCR produce a better biomechanical performance as they present a better passive fit and stress distribution; thus, the objective of the present study is to deepen the knowledge of the RCR with access channel through a finite element study. Crimson Publishers Wings to the Research Research Article","PeriodicalId":179841,"journal":{"name":"Modern Research in Dentistry","volume":"101 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Research in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31031/MRD.2019.04.000577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many articles have been published on complete-arch implant prosthesis [1,2]. Frameworks have been conventionally performed by a casting protocol in the laboratory through cast-on abutments [3]. Cast prosthesis could be cement or screw retained. Nowadays these prostheses can be made using CAD-CAM4; [4] however, an alternative way of performing these prostheses is by RCR with access channel [5,6]. This provides passive adjustment and retrievability. Passive prosthesis fit is one of the most important factors for correct implant and prostheses performance [7]. Misfit is the main problem, the product of several factors that occur during the manufacture of the cast prosthesis, such as distortion of the dental impression, distortion of the master cast, distortion during the casting [8]. For example, these can result in bone loss, loosening of the screw, and fractures [9]. In comparison, the RCR appears to have a better passive fit because the superstructure is cemented to titanium abutments, which have perfect fit, and the cement absorbs and distributes the occlusal force more efficiently [10-13]. Further maintain the retrievability due to access channel. Some studies have performed in vitro tests of RCR, single-unit implant crown [14,15], three unit [10], and complete-arch framework [6]. These demonstrated that RCR produce a better biomechanical performance as they present a better passive fit and stress distribution; thus, the objective of the present study is to deepen the knowledge of the RCR with access channel through a finite element study. Crimson Publishers Wings to the Research Research Article
传统铸造与树脂种植体框架的应力比较。有限元分析研究
关于全弓种植体假体已经发表了许多文章[1,2]。框架通常在实验室通过浇筑基台进行浇筑[3]。铸造假体可采用水泥或螺钉保留。现在这些假体可以用CAD-CAM4制作;[4]然而,另一种执行这些假体的方法是通过带有访问通道的RCR[5,6]。这提供了被动调整和可检索性。被动假体配合是保证假体和假体正确使用的最重要因素之一[7]。错位是主要问题,是铸造假体制造过程中发生的几个因素的产物,如牙印模变形、主模变形、铸造过程中的变形[8]。例如,这些可能导致骨质流失、螺钉松动和骨折[9]。相比之下,RCR具有更好的被动配合,因为上部结构与钛基台胶结,钛基台具有完美的配合,水泥更有效地吸收和分配咬合力[10-13]。进一步保持由于访问通道的可检索性。有研究对RCR、单单元种植体冠[14,15]、三单元种植体冠[10]和全弓框架[6]进行了体外试验。这些结果表明,RCR具有更好的被动配合和应力分布,因此具有更好的生物力学性能;因此,本研究的目的是通过有限元研究加深对具有通道的RCR的认识。深红出版社的研究之翼研究文章
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信