|
In this study, we designed the finite element models of mandible with varying their connecting types between the prosthesis on implant fixture and 2nd premolar. which were free-standing case(Mf), precision attachment case(Mp), semiprecision attachment case(Ms) and telescopic case(Mt). The basic model of the designed finite element models, which contained a canine and the 1st % 2nd premolar, was implanted in the edentulous site of the 1st & 2nd molar by two implant fixtures. We applied the load in all models by two ways. A vertical load of 200N was applied at each central fossa of 2nd premolar and 1st implant A tilting load of 20N with inclination of 45 to lingual side was applied to buccal cusp tips of each 2nd premolar and 1st implant And then we analyzed three-dimensional finite element models, making a comparative study of principal stress and displacement in four cases respectively There-dimensional finite element analysis was performed for the stress distribution and the displacement using commercial software(IDEAS program) for SUN-SPARC workstation. @ES The results were as follows : @EN 1. Under vertical load or tilting load, maximum displacement appeared at the 2nd premolar. Semiprecision case showed the largest maximum displacement and maximum displacement reduced in the order of precision attachment, freestanding and telescopic case. 2. Under vertical load, the pattern of displacement of the 1st implant appeared mesio-inclined because of the 2nd implant splinted together. But displacement pattern of the 2nd premolar varied according to their connection type with prosthesis. The 2nd premolar showed a little mesio-inclined vertical displacement in case of free-standing and disto-inclined vertical displacement due to attachment in case of precision and semiprecision attachment. In telescopic case, the largest mesio-inclined vertical displacement has been shown, so, the 1st premolar leaned mesial side. 3. Under tilting load, The pattern of displacement was similar in all four cases which appeared displaced to lingual side. But, the maximum displacement of 2nd premolar appeared larger than that of the first implant. Therefore, there was large discrepancy in displacement between natural tooth and implant during tilting load : 4. Under vertical load, the maximum compressive stress appeared at the 1st implant’s neck. Semiprecision attachment case showed the largest maximum compressive stress, and the maximum compressive stress reduced in the order of precision attachment. telescopic and free-standing case. 5. Under vertical load, the maximum tensile stress appeared at the 2nd implant’s distal neck. Semiprecision attachment case showed the largest maximum tensile stress, and the maximum tensile stress reduced in the order of precision attachment, telescopic and free-standing case. 6. Under vertical load or tilting load, principal stress appeared little between natural tooth & implant in free-stranding case, but large principal stress was distributed at upper crown and distal contact site of the 2nd premolar in telescopic case. Principal stress appeared large at keyway & around keyway of distal contact site of the 2nd premolar in precision and semiprecision attachment case, appearing more broad and homogeneous in precision attachment case than in semiprecision attachment case.
|