A study on the restoration strategy of a four-unit bridge in the anterior region: a finite element analysis

Song Huang; Jianguo Zhang; Xiaoying Zhang; Fengling Hu; Youcheng Yu; Song Huang; Jianguo Zhang; Xiaoying Zhang; Fengling Hu; Youcheng Yu

doi:10.3934/bioeng.2025021

AIMS Bioengineering

2025, Volume 12, Issue 3: 435-452. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2025021

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

A study on the restoration strategy of a four-unit bridge in the anterior region: a finite element analysis

1.
Faculty of Intelligence Technology, Shanghai Institute of Technology, No. 100 Haiquan Road, Shanghai 201418, China
2.
Department of Stomatology, The Fifth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Fudan University, No. 801, Heqing Road, Minhang District, Shanghai 200240, China
3.
Department of Stomatology, Shanghai Geriatric Medical Center, No. 2560, Chunshen Road, Minhang, Shanghai 200240, China
4.
Department of Stomatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, No. 180, Fenglin Road, Xuhui, Shanghai 200032, China

Received: 09 July 2025 Revised: 01 September 2025 Accepted: 08 September 2025 Published: 12 September 2025

This study evaluated the feasibility of cantilever and fixed bridge restorations through finite element analysis of narrow-diameter implants (NDls) in a 4-unit anterior mandibular bridge. A total of five restoration models were analyzed using static, modal, and dynamic analyses. Results showed that the fixed bridge supported by three NDIs exhibited the lowest stress (crown: 27.429 MPa, implant: 58.608 MPa) and optimal stability (resonance frequency: 8653 Hz). The maximum stresses in cantilever bridge implants (crowns: 78.803 MPa, implants: 146.27) were 2–3 times higher than those in fixed bridges. Dynamic loading generated the highest stresses during the second phase of the masticatory cycle, with overall stress 10%–30% higher than under static loading. Fixed bridges supported by three NDIs are recommended for optimal stress distribution, while cantilever bridges should be used with caution.
- four-unit bridge,
- NDIs,
- cantilever bridge,
- fixed bridge,
- finite element analysis
Citation: Song Huang, Jianguo Zhang, Xiaoying Zhang, Fengling Hu, Youcheng Yu. A study on the restoration strategy of a four-unit bridge in the anterior region: a finite element analysis[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2025, 12(3): 435-452. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2025021

Related Papers:

Abstract

This study evaluated the feasibility of cantilever and fixed bridge restorations through finite element analysis of narrow-diameter implants (NDls) in a 4-unit anterior mandibular bridge. A total of five restoration models were analyzed using static, modal, and dynamic analyses. Results showed that the fixed bridge supported by three NDIs exhibited the lowest stress (crown: 27.429 MPa, implant: 58.608 MPa) and optimal stability (resonance frequency: 8653 Hz). The maximum stresses in cantilever bridge implants (crowns: 78.803 MPa, implants: 146.27) were 2–3 times higher than those in fixed bridges. Dynamic loading generated the highest stresses during the second phase of the masticatory cycle, with overall stress 10%–30% higher than under static loading. Fixed bridges supported by three NDIs are recommended for optimal stress distribution, while cantilever bridges should be used with caution.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, Science, Technology and Innovation Action Plan (grant numbers: 23141901400), Collaborative Innovation Fund of Shanghai Institute of Technology (grant numbers: XTCX2023–18), Science and Technology Development Fund of Shanghai Institute of Technology (grant numbers: KJFZ2024-17).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author contributions

Song Huang: manuscript editing, 3D modeling and simulation experiments; Jianguo Zhang: project analysis, review and editing, securing funding. Xiaoying Zhang: resource search, experimental evaluation. Fengling Hu and Youcheng Yu: paper revision and optimization.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approved was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University (approval number B2024-068R). The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

References

[1]	Ma M, Qi M, Zhang D, et al. (2019) The clinical performance of narrow diameter implants versus regular diameter implants: a meta-analysis. J Oral Implantol 45: 503-508. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00025
[2]	Gao J, Pan Y, Gao Y, et al. (2024) Research progress on the preparation process and material structure of 3D-printed dental implants and their clinical applications. Coatings 14: 781. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14070781
[3]	Ahn JH, Lim YJ, Lee J, et al. (2024) A one-year randomized controlled clinical trial of three types of narrow-diameter implants for fixed partial implant-supported prosthesis in the mandibular incisor area. Bioengineering 11: 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11030272
[4]	Telles LH, Portella FF, Rivaldo EG (2019) Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: a systematic review. PLoS One 14: e0225046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225046
[5]	Gonzalez-Valls G, Roca-Millan E, Céspedes-Sánchez JM, et al. (2021) Narrow diameter dental implants as an alternative treatment for atrophic alveolar ridges. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials 14: 3234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123234
[6]	Antiua E, Escuer V, Alkhraisat MH (2022) Short narrow dental implants versus long narrow dental implants in fixed prostheses: a prospective clinical study. Dent J 10: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10030039
[7]	Kim JE, Yoon Y, Pae A, et al. (2023) Clinical outcome of narrow diameter dental implants: a 3-year retrospective study. Max Plast Reconstr S 45: 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-023-00394-6
[8]	Zhang S, Wang W, Cao Q, et al. (2023) Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of different implant-supported bridges in the maxillary incisal regions. J Med Biol Eng 43: 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-023-00795-y
[9]	Valera-Jiménez JF, Burgueño-Barris G, Gómez-González S, et al. (2020) Finite element analysis of narrow dental implants. Dent Mater 36: 927-935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.04.013
[10]	Sadek HS, Anany NM, Diab AH, et al. (2025) Biomechanical evaluation of cantilevered 2-Unit implant-supported prostheses: a 3D finite element study. Int Dent J 75: 1913-1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2025.01.014
[11]	Kondo Y, Sakai K, Minakuchi H, et al. (2024) Implant-supported fixed prostheses with cantilever: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 10: 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-024-00573-8
[12]	Deste Gökay G, Oyar P, Gökçimen G, et al. (2024) Static and dynamic stress analysis of different crown materials on a titanium base abutment in an implant-supported single crown: a 3D finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health 24: 545. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04328-0
[13]	Alrabiah M (2019) Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Investig Clin Dent 10: e12367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12367
[14]	Bielemann AM, Marcello-Machado RM, Schuster AJ, et al. (2019) Healing differences in narrow diameter implants submitted to immediate and conventional loading in mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontal Res 54: 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12624
[15]	Shihab T, Muhsin SA, Al Marza R (2025) Cantilever extension for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Iraqi J Med Health Sci 2: 8-16. https://doi.org/10.51173/ijmhs.v2i1.3
[16]	Zhang X (2013) Evaluation of the therapeutic efficiency of mandibular anterior implant-supported fixed bridges with cantilevers. Chin Med J 126: 4665-4669. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20131291
[17]	De Stefano M, Lanza A, Sbordone L, et al. (2023) Stress-strain and fatigue life numerical evaluation of two different dental implants considering isotropic and anisotropic human jaw. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H 237: 1190-1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119231193879
[18]	Falcinelli C, Valente F, Vasta M, et al. (2023) Finite element analysis in implant dentistry: state of the art and future directions. Dent Mater 39: 539-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2023.04.002
[19]	Alemayehu DB, Jeng YR (2021) Three-dimensional finite element investigation into effects of implant thread design and loading rate on stress distribution in dental implants and anisotropic bone. Materials 14: 6974. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14226974
[20]	Zhang JG, Hou H, Chen P, et al. (2024) Biomechanical performance of different implant spacings and placement angles in partial fixed denture prosthesis restorations: a finite element analysis. J Med Biol Eng 44: 685-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-024-00896-2
[21]	Barao VA, Assuncao WG, Tabata LF, et al. (2008) Effect of different mucosa thickness and resiliency on stress distribution of implant-retained overdentures-2D FEA. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 92: 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.07.009
[22]	Cicciù M, Cervino G, Terranova A, et al. (2019) Prosthetic and mechanical parameters of the facial bone under the load of different dental implant shapes: a parametric study. Prosthesis 1: 41-53. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis1010006
[23]	Hosseini-Faradonbeh SA, Katoozian HR (2022) Biomechanical evaluations of the long-term stability of dental implant using finite element modeling method: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 14: 182-202. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.3.182
[24]	Sahin Hazir D, Sozen Yanik I, Guncu MB, et al. (2025) Biomechanical behavior of titanium, cobalt-chromium, zirconia, and PEEK frameworks in implant-supported prostheses: a dynamic finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health 25: 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05486-5
[25]	Fiorillo L, Cicciu M, D'Amico C, et al. (2020) Finite element method and von mises investigation on bone response to dynamic stress with a novel conical dental implant connection. Biomed Res Int 2020: 2976067. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2976067
[26]	Frost HM (2004) A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. The Angle Orthodontist 74: 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219
[27]	Yemineni BC, Mahendra J, Nasina J, et al. (2020) Evaluation of maximum principal stress, von mises stress, and deformation on surrounding mandibular bone during insertion of an implant: a three-dimensional finite element study. Cureus 12: e9430. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.9430
[28]	Martinez S, Lenz J, Schweizerhof K, et al. (2015) A variable finite element model of the overall human masticatory system for evaluation of stress distributions during biting and bruxism. In 10th European LS-DYNA Conference . Würzburg, Germany: . https://doi.org/10.1201/b17071-3
[29]	Martinez S, Lenz J, Schindler H, et al. (2021) Clinical data-driven finite element analysis of the kinetics of chewing cycles in order to optimize occlusal reconstructions. Cmes-Comp Model Eng 129: 1259-1281. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2021.017422
[30]	Roatesi I, Roatesi S (2023) Biomechanics study of dental implant-bone system by finite element method. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 45: 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04170-5
[31]	Xu Y, Fan Y, Xu G (2023) Progress of finite element analysis method for oral implantology. Acad J Med Health Sci 4: 65-70. https://doi.org/10.25236/ajmhs.2023.040811
[32]	Lisiak-Myszke M, Marciniak D, Bielinski M, et al. (2020) Application of finite element analysis in oral and maxillofacial surgery-a literature review. Materials 13: 3063. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13143063
[33]	Manea A, Bran S, Dinu C, et al. (2019) Principles of biomechanics in oral implantology. Med Pharm Rep 92: S14-S19. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1512
[34]	Wang CX, Rong QG, Zhu N, et al. (2023) Finite element analysis of stress in oral mucosa and titanium mesh interface. Bmc Oral Health 23: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02703-3
[35]	Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A (2013) Impact of mini-implant length on stability at the initial healing period：a controlled clinical study. Head Face Med 9: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-30
[36]	Mitra D, Gurav P, Rodrigues S, et al. (2023) Evaluation of stress distribution in and around dental implants using three different implant-abutment interfaces with platform-switched and non-platform-switched abutments: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 17: 256-264. https://doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2023.40723
[37]	Barbosa FT, Zanatta LCS, de Souza Rendohl E, et al. (2021) Comparative analysis of stress distribution in one-piece and two-piece implants with narrow and extra-narrow diameters: a finite element study. PLoS One 16: e0245800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245800
[38]	Martinez Choy SE, Lenz J, Schweizerhof K, et al. (2017) Realistic kinetic loading of the jaw system during single chewing cycles: a finite element study. J Oral Rehabil 44: 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12501
[39]	Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, et al. (2017) Finite element analysis of dental implants with and without microthreads under static and dynamic loading. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 27: 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2017020007
[40]	Kayabaşı O, Yüzbasıoğlu E, Erzincanlı F (2006) Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviors of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Softw 37: 649-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2006.02.004
[41]	Cicciu M, Cervino G, Milone D, et al. (2018) FEM investigation of the stress distribution over mandibular bone due to screwed overdenture positioned on dental implants. Materials 11: 1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11091512
[42]	Marcián P, Wolff J, Horácková L, et al. (2018) Micro finite element analysis of dental implants under different loading conditions. Comput Biol Med 96: 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.03.012
[43]	Toniolo I, Salmaso C, Bruno G, et al. (2020) Anisotropic computational modelling of bony structures from CT data: an almost automatic procedure. Comp Meth Prog Bio 189: 105319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105319
[44]	Zhu M, Zhang KW, Tao H, et al. (2020) Magnetic micromanipulation for measurement of stiffness heterogeneity and anisotropy in the mouse mandibular arch. Research 2020: 7914074. https://doi.org/10.34133/2020/7914074
[45]	Jwalithaclare M, Kumar CHS, mondal S (2024) A comparative evaluation of the effect of three different connector designs in predicting fracture resistance of metallic, metal-ceramic and all-ceramic core full coverage four unit bridge: a finite element analysis. TWIST 19: 195-200. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10049652#327
[46]	Reimann L, Zmudzki J, Dobrzanski LA (2015) Strength analysis of a three-unit dental bridge framework with the finite element method. Acta Bioeng Biomech 17: 51-59. https://doi.org/10.5277/Abb-00091-2014-02
[47]	Huang LS, Huang YC, Yuan CD, et al. (2023) Biomechanical evaluation of bridge span with three implant abutment designs and two connectors for tooth-implant supported prosthesis: a finite element analysis. J Dent Sci 18: 248-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2022.05.026
[48]	Colepícolo LS, Magalhães PHV, Martinez MAM, et al. (2025) Comparative analysis of a conventional cantilever abutment and innovative double abutment in dental implant prosthesis: a finite element analysis study. Biomed Eng Adv 9: 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bea.2025.100151
[49]	Gu JY, Ke ZW, Pan H, et al. (2025) Hierarchical engineering scaffolds for oral and craniofacial tissue regeneration: recent advances and challenges. Appl Mater Today 42: 102546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2024.102546
[50]	Lahoud P, Faghihian H, Richert R, et al. (2024) Finite element models: a road to in-silico modeling in the age of personalized dentistry. J Dent 150: 105348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105348

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)