Abstract
Aim This study's objective was to assess and analyze, using 3D Finite Element Analysis, the impact of four mandibular complete arch superstructures on the distribution of stress in the crestal bone during mandibular flexure. Materials and methods Four Finite element models of the mandible with different implant-retained framework designs have been developed. Three of these models had six axial implants placed at intervals of 11.8 mm, 18.8 mm and 25.8 mm from the midline, respectively. One model had two tilted implants and four axial implants splinted with a single piece of framework at intervals of 8.4 mm, 13.4 mm and 18.4 mm from the midline. For analyzing the stress distribution, the finished product was transferred to ANSYS R 18.1 software (Sirsa, Haryana, India) for finite element simulation, the models were constructed, the ends were restrained, and bilateral vertical loads of 50N, 100N and 150N were applied to the distal part of the framework. Results Bilateral loads were applied to each of the four 3D FEM and after assessment of Von Mises Stress and Total Deformation, a finding was made that the model with six axial implants supported by a single piece of framework underwent the highest total deformation and the model with four axial implants and two implants with distal tilts displayed most significant Von Mises stress. Conclusion Within the constraints of this 3D FEA, it was determined that mandibular flexure and peri-implant bone stress were affected by the way the framework is divided and the nature of mandibular movement. The three types of frames with the least bone stress are demonstrated by the mandibular deformation that results from two-piece frameworks on axial implants. Regardless of the number of implants, the single framework splinted with six implants shows a flexure in mandible with the highest bone stress around the implant irrespective of the angulation of the implant. Clinical significance When it comes to edentulous jaws, reducing stress in implant-supported restorative systems at varying degrees of the bone and implant interfaces and superstructures of prosthetics is one of the fundamental goals of implant treatment. A framework with proper design and a low modulus of elasticity reduces mechanical risk. Additionally, a larger number of implants helps to prevent cantilevers and spacing between the implants.