Biomechanical effects of two different collar implant structures on stress distribution under cantilever fixed partial dentures

Authors: Merİİç, Gökçe1; Erkmen, Erkan2; Kurt, Ahmet3; Eser, Atilim4; özden, Ahmet Utku4

Source: Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, Volume 69, Number 6, November 2011 , pp. 374-384(11)

Publisher: Informa Healthcare

Buy & download fulltext article:


Price: $91.01 plus tax (Refund Policy)



Objective. The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of two distinct collar geometries of implants on stress distribution in the bone around the implants supporting cantilever fixed partial dentures (CFPDs) as well as in the implant-abutment complex and superstructures. Materials and methods. The three-dimensional finite element method was selected to evaluate the stress distribution. CFPDs which was supported by microthread collar structured (MCS) and non-microthread collar structured (NMCS) implants was modeled; 300 N vertical, 150 N oblique and 60 N horizontal forces were applied to the models separately. The stress values in the bone, implant-abutment complex and superstructures were calculated. Results. In the MCS model, higher stresses were located in the cortical bone and implant-abutment complex in the case of vertical load while decreased stresses in cortical bone and implant-abutment complex were noted within horizontal and oblique loading. In the case of vertical load, decreased stresses have been noted in cancellous bone and framework. Upon horizontal and oblique loading, a MCS model had higher stress in cancellous bone and framework than the NMCS model. Higher von Mises stresses have been noted in veneering material for NMCS models. Conclusion. It has been concluded that stress distribution in implant-supported CFPDs correlated with the macro design of the implant collar and the direction of applied force.

Keywords: cantilever fixed partial denture; dental stress analysis; implant collar

Document Type: Research Article


Affiliations: 1: 1Near East University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Mersin 10, Turkey 2: 2Gazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ankara, Turkey 3: 3Atıılıım University, Faculty of Engineering, Deparment of Manufacturing Engineering, Ankara, Turkey 4: 4Aachen University, Institute for Materials Applications in Mechanical Engineering, Aachen, Germany

Publication date: November 1, 2011

More about this publication?
Related content


Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content

Text size:

A | A | A | A
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. print icon Print this page