Zygomatic implants in intra-sinus versus extra-maxillary approaches for prosthetic rehabilitation in severely atrophic maxillae. Finite element analysis.

Abstract

Objetive: To compare the stresses and deformations generated on the surrounding bone of the zygomatic implants when using an intra sinusal and extra-maxillary approach, through the finite element method.
Material and Methods: Computer aided designs (CADs) were constructed using SolidWorks Software of a skull with bone resorption to be rehabilitated through a fixed hybrid prosthesis using two zygomatic and two conventional straight implants. For the boundary conditions (load conditions), symmetry in the sagittal plane was assumed and that all the materials were isotropic, homogeneous and linearly elastic. Two zygomatic implantation techniques were simulated: intra sinusal (Is) and extra maxillary (Em). Vertical and lateral loads of 150 N and 50 N were applied to the finite element models to obtain Von Mises equivalent stress and strain (displacement).
Results: The average measurement of the Von Mises stress (MPa) recorded were as follows: Approach of the implant body (Is: 0.24- Em: 0.28,) effort of implant body with vertical load: Is: 0.69 - Em: 0.96; effort of peri-implant surface under horizontal load: Is: 2.11 - Em: 0.94. Average displacement under vertical load of peri-implant surface Is: 0.35 - Em: 0.40, and of implant body Is: 1.34 - Em: 2.04. Average total deformation in approach Is: 2.23 mm - Em: 0.80mm, and average total deformation in the implant body under horizontal load was Is: 0.14 - Em: 0.21.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that despite the differences that occurred in both stress and strain (displacement) between the intra-sinus and extra-maxillary approaches, the static strength of the bone, which is approximately 150 MPa in tension and 250 MPa in compression was not exceeded. Considering the limitations of finite element analysis, there seems to be no biomechanical reason to choose one approach over the other.

References

[1]. Matsumoto W, De Almeida RP, Trivellato AE, Sverzut CE, Hotta TH. Zygomatic Implant-Supported Prosthesis: When the Prosthetic Rehabilitation Affects the Function: A Case Report. Open J Stomatol. 2017;07(10):448–54.

[2]. Stella JP, Warner MR. Sinus slot technique for simplification and improved orientation of zygomaticus dental implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(6):889-93. PMID: 11151591.

[3]. Rosenstein J, Dym H. Zygomatic Implants: A Solution for the Atrophic Maxilla. Dent Clin North Am. 2020;64(2):401-409. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.12.005. PMID: 32111277.

[4]. Rosenstein J, Dym H. Zygomatic Implants: A Solution for the Atrophic Maxilla. Dent Clin North Am. 2020;64(2):401-409. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.12.005. PMID: 32111277.

[5]. Lorusso F, Conte R, Inchingolo F, Festa F, Scarano A. Survival Rate of Zygomatic Implants for Fixed Oral Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes between Zygomatic and Regular Implants. Dent J (Basel). 2021;9(4):38. doi: 10.3390/dj9040038. PMID: 33915748; PMCID: PMC8065623.

[6]. Yalçın M, Can S, Akbaş M, Dergin G, Garip H, Aydil BA, Varol A. Retrospective Analysis of Zygomatic Implants for Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(4):750-756. doi: 10.11607/jomi.8196. PMID: 32724927.

[7]. Blanc O, Shilo D, Weitman E, Capucha T, Rachmiel A. Extramaxillary Zygomatic Implants: An Alternative Approach for the Reconstruction of the Atrophic Maxilla. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020;10(1):127-132. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_157_19. PMID: 32855928; PMCID: PMC7433948.

[8]. Borgonovo A, Grandi T, Vassallo S, Signorini L. Extrasinus Zygomatic Implants for the Immediate Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Maxilla: 1-Year Postloading Results From a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(2):356-365. doi: 10.1016/j.joms. 2020.10.003. PMID: 33160924.

[9]. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, Codesal M, Barluenga N, Manresa C, Franch M. Extrasinus zygomatic implants: three year experience from a new surgical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(1):55-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00130.x. PMID: 19076181.

[10]. Maló P, Nobre Mde A, Lopes I. A new approach to rehabilitate the severely atrophic maxilla using extramaxillary anchored implants in immediate function: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(5):354-66. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60237-1. PMID: 18992569.

[11]. Ishak MI, Kadir MR, Sulaiman E, Kasim NH. Finite element analysis of zygomatic implants in intrasinus and extramaxillary approaches for prosthetic rehabilitation in severely atrophic maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(3):e151-60. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2304. PMID: 23748334.

[12]. Brunski JB. Biomaterials and biomechanics in dental implant design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3(2):85-97. PMID: 3075195.

[13]. Gümrükçü Z. Biomechanical Evaluation of Zygomatic Implant Use in Patients With Different Buccal Maxillary Defect Levels. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(6):e115–e122. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7696. PMID: 31184636.

[14]. Satoh T, Maeda Y, Komiyama Y. Biomechanical rationale for intentionally inclined implants in the posterior mandible using 3D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(4):533-9. PMID: 16161737.

[15]. Sharma A, Rahul GR. Zygomatic implants/fixture: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39(2):215-24. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00055. Epub 2012 Jan 16. PMID: 22248122.

[16]. Wen H, Guo W, Liang R, Xiang L, Long G, Wang T, Deng M, Tian W. Finite element analysis of three zygomatic implant techniques for the severely atrophic eden-tulous maxilla. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):203-15. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.05.004. PMID: 24314571.

[17]. Saleh Saber F, Ghasemi S, Koodaryan R, Babaloo A, Abolfazli N. The Comparison of Stress Distribution with Different Implant Numbers and Inclination Angles In All-on-four and Conventional Methods in Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2015;9(4):246-53. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2015.044. PMID: 26889362; PMCID: PMC4753034.

[18]. Romeed SA, Malik R, Dunne SM. Zygomatic implants: the impact of zygoma bone support on biomechanics. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(3):231-7. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00245. PMID: 24914908.

[19]. Sharma A, Rahul GR. Zygomatic implants/fixture: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39(2):215-24. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00055. Epub 2012 Jan 16. PMID: 22248122.

[20]. Lopez CAV, Vasco MAA, Ruales E, Bedoya KA, Benfatti CM, Bezzon OL, Deliberador TM. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Zirconia and Titanium Dental Implants. J Oral Implantol. 2018;44(6):409-415. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00109. PMID: 29763360.

[21]. Almeida PHT, Cacciacane SH, França FMG. Stresses generated by two zygomatic implant placement techniques associated with conventional inclined anterior implants. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018;30:22-27. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.04.029. PMID: 29946455; PMCID: PMC6016323.

[22]. Satoh T, Maeda Y, Komiyama Y. Biomechanical rationale for intentionally inclined implants in the posterior mandible using 3D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 ;20(4):533-9. PMID: 16161737.

[23]. Satoh T, Maeda Y, Komiyama Y. Biomechanical rationale for intentionally inclined implants in the posterior mandible using 3D finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(4):533-9. PMID: 16161737.

[24]. Korkmaz FM, Korkmaz YT, Yaluğ S, Korkmaz T. Impact of dental and zygomatic implants on stress distribution in maxillary defects: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38(5):557-67. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00111. PMID: 20925533.

[25]. Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, Moreno A, Gennari-Filho H, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF Jr, dos Santos EG. Implants in the zygomatic bone for maxillary prosthetic reha-bilitation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(6):748-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.01.004. PMID: 24530034.
Published
2022-08-31
How to Cite
ARISTIZÁBAL-HOYOS., Juan et al. Zygomatic implants in intra-sinus versus extra-maxillary approaches for prosthetic rehabilitation in severely atrophic maxillae. Finite element analysis.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 4, p. 1-13, aug. 2022. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <https://joralres.com/index.php/JOralRes/article/view/joralres.2022.042>. Date accessed: 18 apr. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2022.042.
Section
Articles