{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020298260149130075, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014498757249378625, 'mean_word_length': 5.160714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Three-dimensional finite element analysis of cantilever fixed bridge supported by implants with mandibular central incisor].

Objective: To investigate effect of the contact surface between the bridge and the adjacent teeth on the stress distribution of the implant and bone tissue and the displacement of the prosthesis in the cantilever fixed implant bridge restoring missing mandibular central incisors. Methods: Two-dimensional images of the mandible and dentition in healthy adults were obtained using CT data. A three-dimensional finite element model of cantilever fixed bridge supported by implants with mandibular central incisor was established by computer reconstruction technique.The contact surface between the bridge and the adjacent natural tooth was designed as "oval" and "trapezoid". The "trapezoid" has a slightly smaller median diameter on the labial side and a slightly larger medial diameter on the lingual side. Loading of 120 N was applied on the tangential margin of the middle line of the long axis of the bridge 41. The direction was set at 0°, which was parallel to the long axis of the tooth and downward. The buccal to lingual and downward angles were 30°, 45° and 60°, respectively, perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth and 90° to the lingual side.The stress distribution of the implant and surrounding bone tissue and the displacement of the prosthesis were compared between the two models. Results: Under axial and buccolingual loading, the maximum equivalent stress peak in the implant and surrounding bone tissue in the cantilever with trapezoidal contact surface design and the maximum displacement of the prosthesis were lower. Moreover, the distribution of stress was more balanced and the concentration range of stress was smaller. With the loading angle increasing, this trend was more obvious. When loading angle increased to 90°, the maximum equivalent stress and the maximum displacement of the elliptic contact surface model implant and surrounding bone tissue were 196 and 101 MPa and 0.196 mm, respectively, while the trapezoidal contact surface model were 157 and 72 MPa and 0.164 mm, respectively. Conclusions: The trapezoidal contact surface of the bridge and the adjacent teeth in the cantilever fixed bridge supported by implants with mandibular central incisor is beneficial to reduce the impact of the leverage on the implant and surrounding bone tissue.