Mathematical modeling of occlusion load on a screw-retained bridge prosthesis on straight universal conical and flat abutments

   In this mathematical experiment, a comparative study of microdeformations and von Mises equivalent stresses arising in the elements of two orthopedic bridge structures with different abutment shapes was conducted using the finite element method. The strength limits of both structures were also compared. The structures under study had the same external geometry and corresponded to two premolars and the first molar. The difference between the models under study was in the superstructures that are inserted and fixed in the implants and serve as a support for artificial crowns. The first model used flat superstructures (or flat abutments), while the second model used conical superstructures (or universal multi-units). The data obtained indicate the clinical significance of choosing the optimal abutment shape when planning surgical interventions and predicting subsequent patient treatment results.

1. Jin HW, Noumbissi S, Wiedemann TG. Comparison of Zirconia Implant Surface Modifications for Optimal Osseointegration. J Funct Biomater. 2024 Apr 2;15(4). doi: 10.3390/jfb15040091. Review. PubMed PMID: 38667548; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11051113.

2. Wang CF, Liu S, Hu LH, Yu Y, Peng X, Zhang WB. Biomechanical behavior of the three-dimensionally printed surgical plates for mandibular defect reconstruction: a finite element analysis. Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon). 2023 Dec;28(1):2286181. doi: 10.1080/24699322.2023.2286181. Epub 2023 Nov 27. PubMed PMID: 38010807.

3. Rahmatian M, Jafari Z, Moghaddam KN, Dianat O, Kazemi A. Finite Element Analysis of Fracture Resistance of Mandibular Molars with Different Access Cavity Designs. J Endod. 2023 Dec;49(12):1690–1697. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2023.09.014. Epub 2023 Oct 5. PubMed PMID: 37804945.

4. Dejak B, Młotkowski A. A comparison of mvM stress of inlays, onlays and endocrowns made from various materials and their bonding with molars in a computer simulation of mastication – FEA. Dent Mater. 2020 Jul;36(7):854–864. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 May 27. PubMed PMID: 32473834

5. Surlari Z, Budală DG, Lupu CI, Stelea CG, Butnaru OM, Luchian I. Current Progress and Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Dentistry - A Narrative Review. J Clin Med. 2023 Nov 28;12(23). doi: 10.3390/jcm12237378. Review. PubMed PMID: 38068430; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10707023.

6. Elsayyad AA, Abbas NA, AbdelNabi NM, Osman RB. Biomechanics of 3-implant-supported and 4-implant-supported mandibular screw-retained prostheses: A 3D finite element analysis study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Jul;124(1):68.e1-68.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.015. Epub 2020 Mar 19. PubMed PMID: 32199642.

7. Freitas A, Demeneghi NC, Barin FR, Battaglion LR, Pires RE, Giordano V. Pipkin Type-II Femoral Head Fracture – A Biomechanical Evaluation by the Finite-Element Method. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2023 Jun;58(3):507–513. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1756326. eCollection 2023 Jun. PubMed PMID: 37396077; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10310412.