Syeda Amtul Haseeba*, Anju S Kumarb, M. P. Chaitrac, K. C. Vinayaa, Soumya Shivananda Gudald, Fathima Parveen Rahmame, Prashant Babajif
aDepartment of Prosthodontics Including Crown and Bridge, Sharavathi Dental College and Hospital, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, bTeeth Care Dental Clinic, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, cDepartment of Periodontology, Sharavathi Dental College and Hospital, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, dDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Sharavathi Dental College and Hospital, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, ePrivate Practitioner, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, fDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Sharavathi Dental College, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
Download PDF
Open Access funded by Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation
Abstract
Objectives: Recently, zirconia ceramic and glass or carbon fiber‑reinforced poly‑ether‑ether‑ketone (PEEK) composites have been introduced as newer implant biomaterials. This study was done to evaluate stress and deformation in bone with glass fiber‑reinforced (GFR)‑PEEK, zirconia, and titanium implants. Materials and Methods: A geometric model of mandibular molar replaced with implant‑supported crown was generated. Implant of 12 mm length and 4.5 mm diameter was used in study. Finite element analysis models of implant assemblies of three materials GFR‑PEEK, zirconium, and titanium were generated. 150 N loads were applied obliquely and vertically along the long axis of implant. Von Mises stresses and deformation generated were compared using ANSYS Workbench 17.0 and finite element software. Results: All three implant assemblies, i.e., GFR‑PEEK, zirconia, and titanium, demonstrated similar stresses and deformation in bone without significant difference. Conclusion: It was concluded that GFR‑PEEK and zirconia implants can be used as a substitute to titanium implants.
Keywords: Finite element analysis, implant, stress distribution, titanium, zirconia
