Name
Title | ||
|---|---|---|
Comparison of Three Different Types of Two-Implant-Supported Magnetic Attachments on the Stress Distribution in Edentulous Mandible. |
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with magnetic attachments can provide an effective treatment modality for edentulous patients. In this study, a three-dimensional finite element analysis was used to compare the biomechanical characteristics of three different types of magnetic attachments in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Flat-type, dome-type, and cushion-type of the magnetic attachments were designed to retain the overdenture. Four types of load were applied to the overdenture in each model: 100N vertical and oblique loads on the right first molar and a 100N vertical load on the right canine and the lower incisors. The biomechanical behaviors of peri-implant bone, abutment, and mucosa were recorded. In vertical incisors, vertical right canine, and oblique molar loading condition, the flat-type group exhibited the highest levels of maximum equivalent strain/stress in the peri-implant bone. The total deformation of mucosa and the maximum equivalent strain/stress in the oblique molar loading condition are about two times as the vertical molar loading condition. These results suggested that both cushion-type and dome-type of the magnetic attachments are better choices in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, and oblique loading is more harmful than vertical loading. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2019 | 10.1155/2019/6839517 | COMPUTATIONAL AND MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN MEDICINE |
Field | DocType | Volume |
Computer vision,Oblique case,Mandibular first molar,Computer science,Implant,Molar,Abutment,Orthodontics,Finite element method,Artificial intelligence,Edentulous mandible,Deformation (mechanics) | Journal | 2019 |
ISSN | Citations | PageRank |
1748-670X | 0 | 0.34 |
References | Authors | |
0 | 9 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fengling Hu | 1 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Yiming Gong | 2 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Zhen Bian | 3 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Xiaoying Zhang | 4 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Bin Xu | 5 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Jianguo Zhang | 6 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Xiaojun Shi | 7 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Youcheng Yu | 8 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Liang Song | 9 | 0 | 0.34 |