Biomechanical comparison of implantation approaches for the treatment of mandibular total edentulism

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0002-1861-9368
dc.contributor.authorArslan, Yunus Ziya
dc.contributor.authorKarabulut, Derya
dc.contributor.authorKahya, Songül
dc.contributor.authorCansız, Erol
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:32:16Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:32:16Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentTAÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Robotlar ve Akıllı Sistemler Ana Bilim Dalı Koleksiyonuen_US
dc.description.abstractApplying four anterior implants placed vertically or tilted in the mandible is considered to provide clinically reasonable results in the treatment of mandibular posterior edentulism. It is also reported that a combination of four anterior and two short posterior implants can be an alternative approach for the rehabilitation of severe atrophy cases. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the biomechanical responses of three different implant placement configurations, which represent the clinical options for the treatment of mandibular edentulism. Three-dimensional models of the mandible, prosthetic bar, dental implant, abutment, and screw were created. Finite element models of the three implant configurations (Protocol 1: Four anterior implants, Protocol 2: Four anterior and two short posterior implants, Protocol 3: Two anterior and two tilted posterior implants: All-on-4™ concept) were generated for 10 patients and analyzed under different loading conditions including chewing, biting, and impact forces. Protocol 2 led to the lowest stress concentrations over the mandible among the three protocols (p < 0.016). Protocol 2 resulted in significantly lower stresses than Protocol 3 and Protocol 1 over prosthetic bars under chewing forces (p < 0.016). None of the implant placement protocols consistently exhibited the lowest stress distribution over abutments. The lowest stresses over dental implants under the chewing, biting, and impact forces were obtained in Protocol 1, Protocol 2, and Protocol 3, respectively (p < 0.016). Protocol 3 was the best option to obtain the lowest stress values over the screws under all types of loading conditions (p < 0.016). In conclusion, Protocol 2 was biomechanically more ideal than Protocol 1 and Protocol 3 to manage the posterior edentulism.
dc.identifier.citationArslan, Yunus Z., Karabulut, D., Kahya, S., Cansız, E. (2020). Biomechanical comparison of implantation approaches for the treatment of mandibular total edentulism, Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers part h-journal of engineering in medicine, 234 (10).
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0954411920943427
dc.identifier.issue10en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12846/1143
dc.identifier.volume234en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherProceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers part h-journal of engineering in medicine
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleBiomechanical comparison of implantation approaches for the treatment of mandibular total edentulism
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Lisans paketi
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
[ X ]
İsim:
license.txt
Boyut:
1.44 KB
Biçim:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Açıklama:
İndir

Koleksiyon

Robotlar ve Akıllı Sistemler Anabilim Dalı