1 Resident Dentist, Ecuador
2 Professor Central University of Ecuador
*Corresponding author:Juan del VL, Professor Central University of Ecuador
Submission: April 26, 2019 Published: May 06, 2019
Aim: Many articles have been published on complete-arch implant prostheses. The conventional option is the cast framework technique (CF) which is screw or cement retained; however, there is little information on Retrievable Cement-retained (RCR) implant-supported prosthesis. Therefore it has not been possible to establish which prosthesis performs better biomechanically. The purpose of this finite element analysis (FEA) was to evaluate the biomechanical differences between cast and retrievable Cement-retained (RCR) implant-supported prosthesis in a complete-arch implant prosthesis.
Material and Methods: Two 3-dimensional FEA models of a complete-arch implant prosthesis framework one CF and one RCR over five inter foraminal implants were developed and two models were covered with acrylic. A vertical load of 613 N was applied to all teeth. The maximum
Results: The RCR prosthesis demonstrated 4,08% less SEQV than the CF, the SEQV was higher between the abutment and implant in the CF conversely in RCR there is not a specific position because the cement acts as a damper. Displacement pattern was 33.82% less in the RCR. The safety factor of the RCR was 1.57 and 1.67 for the CF.
Conclusion: The RCR showed a better distribution of stress in comparison to the CF.
Keywords: Failure analysis; Full edentulism; Prosthetic procedure
Abbreviations: CFT: Cast Framework Technique; RCR: Retrievable Cement-Retained; SEQV: The maximum von Mises equivalent stresses; FEA: Finite Element Analysis