Influence of different restoring materials on stress distribution in prosthesis on implants: a review of finite element studies
Introduction
Dental implants have improved the quality of life of millions of patients in recent decades and have shown a high predictability of success.[1] The high success rates and long-term follow-up (over 20 years) of patients treated with osseointegrated dental implants have attracted the interest of clinicians and researchers worldwide.[2] Occlusal loading of osseointegrated implants is a determining factor in the longevity of treatments with implants. The selection of material used on the occlusal surface of implant-supported prostheses is also important, as these materials can transmit damaging forces to the interface between the alveolar bone and the implant.[3]
Different prosthetic materials are suggested for the fabrication of implant-supported prostheses. The choice of this material is controversial although there is a consensus that implant survival is not affected by the prosthetic material.[4] Skalak et al[5] stated the theory that loading an implant made of a hard occlusal material, either porcelain or metal, can result in high-intensity loading between the implant and the supporting bone. While a material with a low modulus of elasticity has stress-absorbing properties, it can prevent the surrounding bone from possible destruction linked to the magnitude of the load.[6]
Three-dimensional finite element analyses (3D-FEA) are frequently used in dentistry to estimate the stress distribution that occurs in the implant system, peri-implant bone, and prosthetic components.[6] 3D-FEA allows the simulation of a condition that would be impossible to achieve in a clinical study. Therefore, traditional finite elements have become a useful tool to study stress distribution in implant dentistry.[7]
The purpose of this review of the literature on finite element studies is to investigate the influence of the prosthetic material on the stresses induced in bone tissue in implant-supported prostheses.
Methods
The search for articles of this review of the literature was performed in the PubMed/Medline database for articles published up to November 2021. The search strategy used was (finite element analysis) AND (occlusal device OR occlusal surface OR occlusal materials OR veneering materials) AND (implants OR dental implants). The inclusion criteria were studies using the 3D-FEA methodology that evaluated the stress distribution in bone tissue, among different prosthetic/restorative materials, published only in English. The exclusion criteria were studies that did not follow the 3D-FEA methodology. The selected articles were independently evaluated by two different reviewers. The information collected was author and year of publication, dimensions of implants used, the material used in the prosthetic crown, simulated force and direction, and conclusion and effect.
Articles of the in vitro study were selected following evidence-based laboratory medicine.[8] These principles are (1) asking the question, (2) searching for evidence, (3) appraising the evidence, (4) applying the evidence, and (5) assessing the experience.
Results
During the search process, 314 references were found, of which 14 were selected after reading the title and abstract, to be analysed for their full text. After this step, all 14 articles were included for data collection. The search strategy is detailed in [Fig. 1].
The selected studies were dated from 1996 to 2021. The simulated implants were of varying diameters, ranging from 3.8 mm to 5 mm. The length of the implants also varied, with the shortest length being 7 mm and the longest being 13 mm. Regarding the prosthetic materials, a variety of metal-ceramic prostheses can be seen, varying the material of the infrastructure and the veneering ceramic, in addition, prostheses in lithium disilicate and zirconia, acrylic resin, and composite resin. The simulated forces ranged from 30 to 1000 N, using either axial or oblique loads.
Twelve studies found no differences in force dissipation in bone tissue between different prosthetic materials[2] [4] [6] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [20]. Only two studies found a positive relationship between the restorative material and bone tissue tension[17] [18].
Discussion
Biomechanical considerations are recognized as being one of the most important factors for the long-term success of osseointegrated implants. Among the methods for evaluating implant biomechanics, 3D-FEA has been widely used for the quantitative assessment of bone stresses.[2] This analysis identifies stresses and their dissipation at the prosthesis-implant-bone interface, which can be difficult to assess by other biomechanical methods.[14]
After the review of included studies, it was found that most of the articles indicate that the prosthetic material does not influence the generation of tension and dissipation in the bone and peri-implant tissue. This can be justified due to the use of different prosthetic materials having less influence on the stresses in the supporting bone with 1% of the variance.[11] According to Sotto-Maior et al,[12] the dissipation of forces was not influenced by the prosthetic material although the occlusal force is the factor that has the highest weight about the stresses generated in the implants, abutment being the second. Despite not affecting bone tissue, occlusal materials show differences in stress distributions in the crown structure and abutment.
Sevimay et al[2] evaluated prosthetic crowns made with IPS Empress 2, In-Ceram, PFM with a chromium-cobalt framework, PFM with a gold-silver-palladium framework, and states that the different prosthetic materials did not influence the distribution of forces in bone and peri-implant bone tissue. However, when evaluating the ceramic, IPS Empress 2 showed the highest stress concentration. When the stress distribution in the framework was evaluated, the stress values were different for each model. In-Ceram porcelain (173 MPa) and PFM crown with a cobalt-chromium framework (149 MPa) induced higher von Mises stress values than PFM crown with a gold-silver-palladium framework (108 MPa) and IPS Empress 2 (119 MPa). The reason for these differences may be related to the elastic modulus of the materials. In-Ceram and PFM crown with chromium-cobalt framework have a higher modulus of elasticity compared with IPS Empress 2 and PFM crown with a gold-silver-palladium framework.
Sannino et al[17] analyzed the stresses of the prosthesis-implant system and showed that the choice of material was crucial for the distribution of stresses in different components. It was noted that due to the large difference in the hardness between the materials of the system, the main stress gradient in the cement layer increased in the situation of zirconia abutment with micro-hybrid composite core and titanium abutment with a micro-hybrid composite core. For the situation of zirconia on abutment and core, and titanium abutment and zirconia core, the stress distribution in the cement layer was more homogeneous. Higher failure risks for the cement layer placed between the core and the abutments were found when a micro-hybrid composite core was used.
Gungor and Yilmaz[4] reported that higher stress levels were observed in the models with zirconia (93.6 MPa) compared with models with lithium disilicate (76.3 MPa). One justification for this is that stresses in the framework materials increased with the decrease in the modulus of elasticity of the layering material. Higher differences between the modulus of elasticity of the framework and the veneer material transmit greater concentrations of stress in the framework.[19] Yegin and Atala[14] also agree that higher differences between the modulus of elasticity of the infrastructure and the veneer ceramics lead to a higher concentration of stress in the framework. Thus, the monolithic crowns showed a decrease in stress concentration, as the stresses were more concentrated on the ceramic surface due to the elastic modulus being the same throughout the prosthesis, which reduced the load transmission to the implant and the bone, consequently.
The study by Mourya et al[18] reveals that the use of a material with a lower modulus of elasticity in the crown, such as PEEK crowns with a composite resin layer, implies greater stress on the abutment than a metal-ceramic crown. The PEEK group in the axial loading presents 514 MPa in the abutment, While the metal-fused porcelain crown has a tension of 123Mpa. In the oblique loading, which is the most harmful to the implants, these values increase to 1347 MPa (PEEK) and 400 MPa (PFM). Due to this, the use of prosthetic materials with a low modulus of elasticity may be associated with failures in the abutment region, with the retaining screw being the most subject to failure. Alves Gomes et al[3] observed that porcelain crowns absorbed less stress than composite resin crowns. The use of porcelain as a veneer material reduced the stress that was transmitted to the retaining screw. Composite resin has a low modulus of elasticity and is more deformable than porcelain. Thus, resin exhibits greater displacement and transfers stress directly to the retaining screw, different from the porcelain. Low abrasion resistance is a disadvantage of the composite resin. If the occlusal scheme and morphology cannot be maintained over time, undesirable lateral forces may increase.
When evaluating complete dentures fixed to implants, studies[10] [20] agreed that different occlusal materials did not influence the tension transmitted to the bone tissue. However, Ferreira et al[20] shows that although the resin teeth had lower values of von Mises stress, the groups with porcelain teeth significantly decreased the stresses on the metallic frameworks.
Although different occlusal materials do not influence the tension transmitted to the bone and peri-implant tissue, there is a tendency where materials with low elastic modulus transmit greater tensions to the infrastructure materials both in single prostheses and in protocol-type prostheses. In contrast to the 12 studies that did not show a positive relationship between the prosthetic material and the increase in stress in the bone tissue, two articles found a positive result, which can be explained by the different designs of the 3D-FEA studies, where the change in the implant geometry and bone density between studies may explain the discrepancies between the results. Finite element studies allow an approximation of the behavior of the material to the real situation.[12]
Therefore, further investigations related to dynamic applications of forces and long-term clinical studies are needed to assist the dentist in choosing the appropriate prosthetic material in implant-supported restorations.
Conclusion
Evaluating the stress distribution by 3D-FEA, the prosthetic materials used on the occlusal surface did not interfere with the distribution of stresses to the bone and peri-implant tissue, both in single prostheses and protocol-type prostheses.
References
- 1 Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Almeida DA, de Souza Batista VE, Lemos CAA, Pellizzer EP. Finite element analysis on influence of implant surface treatments, connection and bone types. Mater Sci Eng C 2016; 63: 292-300CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2 Sevimay M, Usumez A, Eskitascioglu G. The influence of various occlusal materials on stresses transferred to implant-supported prostheses and supporting bone: a three-dimensional finite-element study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 73 (01) 140-147CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3 Gomes ÉA, Barão VA, Rocha EP, de Almeida ÉO, Assunção WG. Effect of metal-ceramic or all-ceramic superstructure materials on stress distribution in a single implant-supported prosthesis: three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26 (06) 1202-1209Google Scholar
- 4 Bankoğlu Güngör M, Yılmaz H. Evaluation of stress distributions occurring on zirconia and titanium implant-supported prostheses: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116 (03) 346-355CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5 Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 49 (06) 843-848CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6 Ercal P, Taysi AE, Ayvalioglu DC, Eren MM, Sismanoglu S. Impact of peri-implant bone resorption, prosthetic materials, and crown to implant ratio on the stress distribution of short implants: a finite element analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 2021; 59 (04) 813-824CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7 de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, Almeida DAF, Santiago Junior JF, Lemos CAA, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of the effect of an offset implant configuration in the posterior maxilla with external hexagon implant platform: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (03) 363-371CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8 Christenson RH, Snyder SR, Shaw CS. et al. Laboratory medicine best practices: systematic evidence review and evaluation methods for quality improvement. Clin Chem 2011; 57 (06) 816-825CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9 Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type, and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76 (06) 633-640CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10 Sertgöz A. Finite element analysis study of the effect of superstructure material on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Int J Prosthodont 1997; 10 (01) 19-27PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11 Juodzbalys G, Kubilius R, Eidukynas V, Raustia AM. Stress distribution in bone: single-unit implant prostheses veneered with porcelain or a new composite material. Implant Dent 2005; 14 (02) 166-175CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12 Sotto-Maior BS, Senna PM, da Silva WJ, Rocha EP, Del Bel Cury AA. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio, retention system, restorative material, and occlusal loading on stress concentrations in single short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (03) e13-e18Google Scholar
- 13 Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Different combinations of CAD/CAM materials on the biomechanical behavior of a two-piece prosthetic solution. Int J Comput Dent 2019; 22 (02) 171-176PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14 Yeğin, Elif, Mustafa Hayati Atala. Comparison of CAD/CAM manufactured implant-supported crowns with different analyses. Int J Implant Dentistry 2020; 6 (01) 1-11Google Scholar
- 15 Ferreira MB, Barão VA, Faverani LP, Hipólito AC, Assunção WG. The role of superstructure material on the stress distribution in mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures. A CT-based 3D-FEA. Mater Sci Eng C 2014; 35: 92-99CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16 Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Noritomi PY, Souza Batista VE, Cruz RS, de Luna Gomes JM, Pellizzer EP. Biomechanical evaluation of different implant–abutment connections, retention systems, and restorative materials in the implant-supported single crowns using 3D finite element. J Oral Implantol 2021; DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00328.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17 Sannino G, Marra G, Feo L, G Vairo Barlattani A. 3D finite element non linear analysis on the stress state at bone-implant interface in dental osteointegrated implants. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2010; 3 (03) 26-37PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18 Mourya A, Nahar R, Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Stress distribution around different abutments on titanium and CFR-PEEK implant with different prosthetic crowns under parafunctional loading: a 3D FEA study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2021; 11 (02) 313-320CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19 Möllers K, Pätzold W, Parkot D. et al. Influence of connector design and material composition and veneering on the stress distribution of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: a finite element study. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (08) e171-e175CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20 Santiago Junior JF, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS. Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: a 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C 2013; 33 (08) 4700-4714
Comments are closed here.