• Users Online: 152
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 105-109

Effect of different framework materials on stresses induced at the implant/bone interface in all-on-four implant treatment concept: three-dimensional finite element analysis

1 Department of Dental Biomaterials, Modern University for Technology and Information, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Mechanics, Giza Systems, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Ahmed M Sayed
PhD, Modern University for Technology and Information, Al Gamea Al Haditha Street, 5th District, El.Hadaba El.Wosta, Mokatam, Cairo
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_10_22

Rights and Permissions

Background and aim Treatment of mandibular edentulous ridge with all-on-four treatment concept is a reliable choice. However, the framework material may affect the stresses transmitted to the implant and bone. The aim of the study was to compare stresses transferred to implant–bone interface on using glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC), zirconia (Zr), titanium (Ti) and poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as framework materials. Patients and methods Three-dimensional finite element model of completely edentulous mandible restored with four implants (two axial anterior implants and two posterior implants 30° distally tilted) connected with a framework of different materials (Zr, Ti, GFRC, and PEEK) was constructed. A unilateral axial load of 250 N was applied at the distal end of the cantilever and the resultant von Mises stresses at implant–bone interface were calculated. Results The lowest von Mises stresses at implant/crestal bone area was recorded with Zr framework followed by Ti then GFRC while the highest von Mises stresses were recorded with PEEK framework. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the stiffer framework material transmits more stresses to the implants. The stress distribution of GFRC, as a framework material, is better than PEEK.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded99    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal