We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 (2014), No. 6     19. Dec. 2014
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29 (2014), No. 6  (19.12.2014)

Online Article, Page 275-282, doi:10.11607/jomi.3663, PubMed:25397809

Online Article: Biomechanical Factors Associated with Mandibular Cantilevers: Analysis with Three-Dimensional Finite Element Models
Gonda, Tomoya / Yasuda, Daiisa / Ikebe, Kazunori / Maeda, Yoshinobu
Purpose: Although the risks of using a cantilever to treat missing teeth have been described, the mechanisms remain unclear. This study aimed to reveal these mechanisms from a biomechanical perspective. The effects of various implant sites, number of implants, and superstructural connections on stress distribution in the marginal bone were analyzed with three-dimensional finite element models based on mandibular computed tomography data. Forces from the masseter, temporalis, and internal pterygoid were applied as vectors.
Materials and Methods: Two three-dimensional finite element models were created with the edentulous mandible showing severe and relatively modest residual ridge resorption. Cantilevers of the premolar and molar were simulated in the superstructures in the models. The following conditions were also included as factors in the models to investigate changes: poor bone quality, shortened dental arch, posterior occlusion, lateral occlusion, double force of the masseter, and short implant. Multiple linear regression analysis with a forced-entry method was performed with stress values as the objective variable and the factors as the explanatory variable.
Results: When bone mass was high, stress around the implant caused by differences in implantation sites was reduced. When bone mass was low, the presence of a cantilever was a possible risk factor. The stress around the implant increased significantly if bone quality was poor or if increased force (eg, bruxism) was applied.
Conclusion: The addition of a cantilever to the superstructure increased stress around implants. When large muscle forces were applied to a superstructure with cantilevers or if bone quality was poor, stress around the implants increased.

Keywords: biomechanical factors, cantilevers, dental implants, finite element analysis, implant-supported prostheses, multivariate analysis