The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Influence of bruxism on occlusal force distribution in maxillary implant-supported overdentures: A finite element analysis study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aldowah Omir, Zarbah Mohammad, Okshah Abdulmajeed, Alyami Mohammed Hamad, Almobti Mohammed Nasser, Mosaddad Seyed Ali
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The optimal implant number and distribution for maxillary implant-supported overdentures (IODs) in patients with bruxism remain uncertain.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical effect of bruxism on maxillary IODs with different implant configurations using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) denture base materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four 3-dimensional finite element models of maxillary IODs were developed with varying implant numbers, diameters, and positions. Models were designated according to implant configuration: R4 included 4 regular-diameter implants in the lateral incisor and first premolar regions; N4 included 4 narrow-diameter implants in the same positions; R2N1 included 2 regular-diameter posterior implants and 1 narrow-diameter midline implant; and R2 included 2 regular-diameter implants in the canine regions. Each model was analyzed with PMMA and PEEK overdentures under simulated bruxism loading (1350 N) and 3 occlusal relationships. Total deformation, von Mises stress, and fatigue behavior were evaluated.
RESULTS: Implant distribution had a greater effect on biomechanical behavior than overdenture material. R4 showed the lowest cortical bone (approximately 48 to 55 MPa) and implant stresses (approximately 135 to 160 MPa), whereas N4 and R2N1 generated higher cortical bone stresses (approximately 80 to 85 MPa), approaching fatigue limits. R2 exhibited the greatest mucosal deformation (up to approximately 98 µm). PMMA overdentures showed lower deformation (<100 µm) but higher stress values (up to approximately 300 MPa), whereas PEEK overdentures exhibited greater deformation (up to approximately 270 µm) with lower stress magnitudes (approximately 90 to 135 MPa). Both materials exceeded reported fatigue limits under simulated bruxism loading.
CONCLUSIONS: Under simulated bruxism conditions, maxillary overdentures supported by 4 regular-diameter implants demonstrated the most favorable biomechanical behavior. Both PMMA and PEEK overdentures showed limited fatigue endurance, emphasizing the importance of implant distribution and maintenance in patients with bruxism.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical effect of bruxism on maxillary IODs with different implant configurations using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) denture base materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four 3-dimensional finite element models of maxillary IODs were developed with varying implant numbers, diameters, and positions. Models were designated according to implant configuration: R4 included 4 regular-diameter implants in the lateral incisor and first premolar regions; N4 included 4 narrow-diameter implants in the same positions; R2N1 included 2 regular-diameter posterior implants and 1 narrow-diameter midline implant; and R2 included 2 regular-diameter implants in the canine regions. Each model was analyzed with PMMA and PEEK overdentures under simulated bruxism loading (1350 N) and 3 occlusal relationships. Total deformation, von Mises stress, and fatigue behavior were evaluated.
RESULTS: Implant distribution had a greater effect on biomechanical behavior than overdenture material. R4 showed the lowest cortical bone (approximately 48 to 55 MPa) and implant stresses (approximately 135 to 160 MPa), whereas N4 and R2N1 generated higher cortical bone stresses (approximately 80 to 85 MPa), approaching fatigue limits. R2 exhibited the greatest mucosal deformation (up to approximately 98 µm). PMMA overdentures showed lower deformation (<100 µm) but higher stress values (up to approximately 300 MPa), whereas PEEK overdentures exhibited greater deformation (up to approximately 270 µm) with lower stress magnitudes (approximately 90 to 135 MPa). Both materials exceeded reported fatigue limits under simulated bruxism loading.
CONCLUSIONS: Under simulated bruxism conditions, maxillary overdentures supported by 4 regular-diameter implants demonstrated the most favorable biomechanical behavior. Both PMMA and PEEK overdentures showed limited fatigue endurance, emphasizing the importance of implant distribution and maintenance in patients with bruxism.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Finite Element AnalysisDenture, OverlayDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedHumansBite ForceBruxismPolymethyl MethacrylateBiomechanical PhenomenaPolymersPolyethylene GlycolsBenzophenonesDental MaterialsKetonesStress, MechanicalDental Stress AnalysisDental ImplantsMaxillaDenture DesignImaging, Three-DimensionalElastic ModulusDenture BasesDenture, Complete, UpperBiocompatible MaterialsIncisorCuspid