Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2024
Prosthetic framework improvement using lattice structure: A comparative finite element study of a mandibular implant-supported prosthesis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lemaire Samuel, Bouby Céline, Thiebaud Frédéric, Berry-Kromer Valérie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: An alternative option was proposed regarding the prosthetic rehabilitation of a fully edentulous mandible using only four implants. The aim was to reduce the stiffness of the prosthetic framework. To that end, the alternative option consists of a prosthetic framework optimized with a porous structure. Mechanical differences were analyzed between non-prosthetic mandible and restored mandible either with a conventional bulk titanium framework or with this alternative option. The non-prosthetic mandible corresponds to the mandible in its natural state, without prosthesis. This will be considered as the reference for comparison with restored models (mandible with prosthesis).
METHODS: Three models are used: the first one is the non-prosthetic mandible, the second one is the restored mandible with conventional bulk titanium prosthetic framework, and the third one is the alternative option. Prosthetic framework was optimized with the use of a lattice structure. A numerical analysis was performed (with Abaqus Standard software®) to obtain the effective parameters corresponding to equivalent homogeneous behavior. In the 3 models, physiological boundary conditions were used, considering the activity of several muscles of the masticatory system during three main tasks of mastication (incisive clenching, maximum intercuspation and unilateral molar clenching).
RESULTS: Numerical simulations allowed to obtain mandibular global kinematics, local displacement at the bone-implant interface and the state of strain at the bone-implant interface, for each masticatory tasks. For this comparative study, the non-prosthetic mandible model was used as a reference to observe the benefits of using a lattice prosthetic framework compared to a conventional bulk titanium framework.
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional titanium framework, the lattice prosthetic one appeared to be more respectful of the natural mandible kinematics, given by the reference model. It also resulted in strain values within the physiological loading range.
METHODS: Three models are used: the first one is the non-prosthetic mandible, the second one is the restored mandible with conventional bulk titanium prosthetic framework, and the third one is the alternative option. Prosthetic framework was optimized with the use of a lattice structure. A numerical analysis was performed (with Abaqus Standard software®) to obtain the effective parameters corresponding to equivalent homogeneous behavior. In the 3 models, physiological boundary conditions were used, considering the activity of several muscles of the masticatory system during three main tasks of mastication (incisive clenching, maximum intercuspation and unilateral molar clenching).
RESULTS: Numerical simulations allowed to obtain mandibular global kinematics, local displacement at the bone-implant interface and the state of strain at the bone-implant interface, for each masticatory tasks. For this comparative study, the non-prosthetic mandible model was used as a reference to observe the benefits of using a lattice prosthetic framework compared to a conventional bulk titanium framework.
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional titanium framework, the lattice prosthetic one appeared to be more respectful of the natural mandible kinematics, given by the reference model. It also resulted in strain values within the physiological loading range.