3D Finite Element Study on Incomplete Osseointegration: Locator Attachment versus Ball Attachment

Hisham S. ElGabry; Salah A. Yousief; Amal H. Moubarak; Iman A. Eltaftazani; Mohamed El-Anwar; Mohamed El Zawahry

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2021.5680

Authors

Hisham S. ElGabry Department of Prosthodontics, National Research Centre, MSA University, 6th of October City, Egypt http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3235-1625
Salah A. Yousief Department of Restorative and Prosthetic, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Amal H. Moubarak Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Iman A. Eltaftazani Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt
Mohamad El-Anwar Prof. Mechanical Engineering Dept. National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
Mohamed M. EL-Zawahry Professor Prosthodontics Dept. National Research Centre-Cairo Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.5680

Keywords:

Finite Element Analysis, Locator Attachment, Ball and Socket Attachment, Incomplete Osseointegration

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Incomplete implant osseointegration may affect the choice of the type of attachment to ensure less amount of bone resorption, periods of maintenance, and longer implant/attachment life-time.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate, using 3D FE analysis (FEA), the influence of two different types of attachments on the rate of bone resorption, need for maintenance and implant/attachment life time in cases of unpredictable osseointegration in various bone types and using different implant angulations.

METHODS: Six finite element models were prepared; three for the locator attachment while the other three for the ball attachment. Each of the three models simulates vertical implant and inclined implants by 10° and 20° degrees. Frictional contact between implant and cortical bone simulated the incomplete osseointegration scenario.

RESULTS: Non-linear static analysis results showed that locator attachment and its cap may have longer time life in comparison with the ball attachment and its cap.

CONCLUSIONS: Both attachments were safe for cortical and spongy bone, while the cortical bone receives less Von Mises stress by up to 33% with the increased implant angulation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

John J, Rangarajan V, Savadi R, Kumar S, Kumar PS. A finite element analysis of stress distribution in the bone, around the implant supporting a mandibular overdenture with Ball/O Ring and magnetic attachment. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2012;12(1):37-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0114-0 PMid:23450217 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0114-0

Huang HL, Fuh LJ, Hsu JT, Tu MG, Shen YW, Wu CL. Effects of implant surface roughness and stiffness of grafted bone on an immediately loaded maxillary implant: A 3D numerical analysis. J Oral Rehabi. 2008;35(4):283-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01817.x PMid:18321264 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01817.x

Hudieb MI, Wakabayashi N, Abu-Hammad OA, Kasugai S. Biomechanical effect of an exposed dental implant’s first thread: A three-dimensional finite element analysis study. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:3933-40. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.913186 PMid:31131833 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.913186

Eltaftazani I, Moubarak A, El-Anwar M. Locator attachment versus ball attachment: 3-Dimensional finite element study. Egypt Dent J. 2011;57(2):73-85.

AbdelAzim A, Zaki A, El-Anwar M. Restoration of a large-diameter single-implant molar versus two conventional implants, CAD / CAM The international digital dentistry magazine, French edition is a magazine of the dental tribune international group and will be published annually with one issue per quarter. Dent Tribune. 2013;4(3):20-5.

El-Anwar M, El-Zawahry M, El-Mofty M. Load transfer on dental implants and surrounding bones. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2012;6(3):551-60.

El-Anwar M, El-Mofty M, Ahmed A, El-Sheikh S, El-Zawahry M. The effect of using different crown and implant materials on bone stress distribution: A finite element study. Egypt J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;5(2):58-64. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.omx.0000444266.10130.4c DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.OMX.0000444266.10130.4c

Meijer HJ, Starmans FJ, Steen WH, Bosman F. Location of implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible and the consequences for the design of the superstructure. J Oral Rehabil. 1994;21(1):47-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01123.x PMid:8133388 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01123.x

Huang HL, Chang CH, Hsu JT, Fallgatter AM, Ko CC. Comparison of implant body designs and threaded designs of dental implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(4):551-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01124.x PMid:17929515 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01124.x

El-Anwar M. Simple technique to build complex 3D solid models. In: 19th International Conference on Computer Theory and Applications (ICCTA 2009), Alexandria, Egypt; 2009.

Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M. Three-dimensional optimization and sensitivity analysis of dental implant thread parameters using finite element analysis. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;44(2):59-65. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.2.59 PMid:29732310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.2.59

Cicciù M, Cervino G, Milone D, Risitano G. FEM Investigation of the stress distribution over mandibular bone due to screwed over-denture positioned on dental implants. Materials (Basel). 2018;11(9):1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11091512 PMid:30142897 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11091512

El-Anwar M, Saleh M, Omar W. Stresses distribution of two different attachment designs under implant supported over-denture-a finite element study. In: Proceedings of Association of Egyptian American Scholars Conference-Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; 2012.

Satpathy S, Babu SC, Shetty S, Raj B. Stress distribution patterns of implant supported overdentures-analog versus finite element analysis: A comparative in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015;15(3):250-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.165324 PMid:26929521 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.165324

Chang Y, Tambe A, Maeda Y, Wada M, Gonda T. Finite element analysis of dental implants with validation: To what extent can we expect the model to predict biological phenomena? A literature review and proposal for classification of a validation process. Int J Implant Dent. 2018;4(1):7.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0119-5 PMid:29516219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0119-5

Caldas RA, Pfeifer CS, Bacchi A, Dos Santos MB, Reginato VF, Consani RL. Implant inclination and horizontal misfit in metallic bar framework of overdentures: Analysis by 3D-FEA method. Braz Dent J. 2018;29(2):166-72. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201801672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201801672

Ozan O, Ramoglu S. Effect of implant height differences on different attachment types and peri-implant bone in mandibular two-implant overdentures: 3D Finite element study. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(3):e50-9. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-13-00239 PMid:24471769 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00239

Cervino G, Romeo U, Lauritano F, Bramanti E, Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, et al. Fem and von mises analysis of OSSTEM® dental implant structural components: Evaluation of different direction dynamic loads. Open Dent J. 2018;12:219-29. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010219 PMid:29682092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010219