Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Apr;129(4):597.e1-597.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.012. Epub 2023 Feb 11.
Stresses applied to zygomatic implants have been determined to be transferred mainly to the zygomatic bone; however, consensus regarding the stress distribution pattern in the bone surrounding zygomatic implants has not yet been reached.
The purpose of this 3-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) study was to visually compare the stress distribution pattern in 2 different zygomatic implant treatment modalities and evaluate the effect of masseter musculature involvement.
A 3D FEA craniofacial model was constructed from the computed tomography (CT) data of a selected patient with a severely atrophic edentulous maxilla. Modeled zygomatic and conventional implants were inserted into the craniofacial model supporting a prosthesis superstructure. Two types of treatment were considered in the study: 2 zygomatic implants placed bilaterally or 2 zygomatic implants placed in conjunction with at least 2 conventional implants at the anterior maxilla. The models were loaded with a vertical force of 150 N, a lateral force of 50 N, and a distributed occlusal force of 300 N applied to the insertion area of the masseter muscle. The stresses on and deformations of the bones and implants were then observed and compared with and without the involvement of the musculature component.
The stresses were distributed efficiently along the vertical and horizontal facial buttresses, as in the dentate skull; however, a difference in distribution pattern was observed when the models were loaded without applying the muscle component. The maximum deformation of bones surrounding the implants occurred in the abutment connection of the conventional anterior implant in the model with an additional conventional anterior implant.
The FEA revealed the stresses were distributed efficiently along the vertical and horizontal facial buttresses, as in the dentate skull. However, the stresses in both models were concentrated in the zygomatic bone when incorporating the muscle component. Therefore, incorporating muscular force into FEA studies could affect the analysis result.
已经确定作用于颧骨种植体的应力主要传递到颧骨;然而,对于颧骨种植体周围骨的应力分布模式尚未达成共识。
本三维(3D)有限元分析(FEA)研究的目的是直观比较两种不同颧骨种植体治疗方式的应力分布模式,并评估咀嚼肌参与的效果。
从一名严重萎缩性无牙上颌骨患者的计算机断层扫描(CT)数据构建 3D FEA 颅面模型。将模拟的颧骨和常规种植体插入颅面模型中,支撑修复体的上部结构。研究考虑了两种治疗方法:双侧放置 2 个颧骨种植体或在前上颌放置 2 个颧骨种植体与至少 2 个常规种植体相结合。模型上施加 150N 的垂直力、50N 的侧向力和 300N 的分布咬合力,施加在咀嚼肌插入区域。然后观察和比较有和没有肌肉成分参与时骨骼和种植体上的应力和变形。
与有牙颅骨一样,应力沿垂直和水平面部支柱有效分布;然而,当模型不施加肌肉成分时,观察到分布模式存在差异。在模型中增加一个额外的常规前牙种植体时,常规前牙种植体的基台连接处发生了种植体周围骨骼的最大变形。
FEA 显示,与有牙颅骨一样,应力沿垂直和水平面部支柱有效分布。然而,当包含肌肉成分时,两种模型中的应力都集中在颧骨上。因此,将肌肉力纳入 FEA 研究可能会影响分析结果。