Authors : Dr. Devayani D. K.; Dr. Ponnanna A. A.; Dr. Smitha Gujjar B.; Dr. Ranganatha Rao K. Jingade; Dr. Prathima K.; Dr. Akshitha H. M.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/569eayne

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug701

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background: Implant-assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs) have emerged as a predictable treatment option for restoring mandibular Kennedy Class I distal extension edentulism by improving prosthesis support, stability, and load distribution. Among the factors influencing their biomechanical performance, implant diameter plays a crucial role in stress transmission to the surrounding bone and prosthetic components. This study evaluated the biomechanical behaviour of narrow and wide diameter implants supporting mandibular implant-assisted distal extension cast partial dentures under dynamic loading conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA).  Materials and Methods: Two three-dimensional finite element models of mandibular Kennedy Class I arches restored with implant-assisted cast partial dentures were constructed. Model 1 incorporated narrow diameter implants (3.5 × 11.5 mm), whereas Model 2 incorporated wide diameter implants (5.0 × 10 mm). Both models were standardized with identical prosthesis design, attachment system, material properties, and loading conditions. Dynamic cyclic loading of 125,000 cycles was simulated using vertical (150 N) and oblique (100 N) occlusal forces. Maximum prosthesis displacement and von Mises stress distribution in the implant, peri-implant bone, prosthetic framework, denture base, artificial teeth, and abutment teeth were analysed.  Results: The narrow implant model demonstrated lower prosthesis displacement (0.16279 mm) than the wide implant model (0.25882 mm). The overall maximum von Mises stress was also lower in the narrow implant model (290.49 MPa) compared with the wide implant model (310.19 MPa). Stress concentrations within cortical and cancellous bone were reduced around narrow diameter implants, while the wide implant model exhibited greater stress transfer to the prosthetic components.  Conclusion: Within the limitations of this finite element study, narrow diameter implants demonstrated more favorable biomechanical behaviour by reducing prosthesis displacement and promoting balanced stress distribution under dynamic loading conditions. These findings suggest that narrow diameter implants may be a viable option for implant-assisted distal extension removable partial dentures when appropriate case selection and prosthetic design are employed.

Keywords : Finite Element Analysis; Implant-Assisted Removable Partial Denture; Kennedy Class I; Narrow Diameter Implant; Wide Diameter Implant; Dynamic Loading.

References :

1. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJL, Marcenes W. Global burden of severe tooth loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(7 Suppl):20S–28S.
2. Miller EL. Systems for classifying partially dentulous arches. J Prosthet Dent. 1970;24(1):25–40.
3. Kennedy E. Partial denture construction. Dent Items Interest. 1925;47:23–28.
4. Bural C, Buzbas B, Ozatik S, Bayraktar G, Emes Y. Distal extension mandibular removable partial denture with implant support. Eur J Dent. 2016;10(4):566–70.
5. Kelly E. Changes caused by a mandibular removable partial denture opposing a maxillary complete denture. J Prosthet Dent. 1972;27(2):140–50.
6. Resende CMBM, Barbosa DB, das Neves FD, et al. Biomechanical behavior of distal extension removable partial dentures: A systematic review. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(3):241–8.
7. Shen K, Gongloff RK. Prevalence of the combination syndrome among denture patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62(6):642–4.
8. Palmqvist S, Carlsson GE, Öwall B. The combination syndrome: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(3):270–5.
9. Kotb RSM, Hassan GA, Tolba MM, Agamy EF, Mohamed GF. Clinical evaluation of implant-supported and implant-retained distal extension removable partial dentures on supporting structures. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2021;9(D):170–8.
10. Ohkubo C, Kobayashi M, Suzuki Y, Hosoi T. Effect of implant support on distal-extension removable partial dentures: In vivo assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(6):1095–101.
11. Ramchandran A, Agrawal KK, Chand P, Ramashanker, Singh RD, Gupta A. Implant-assisted removable partial denture: An approach to switch Kennedy Class I to Kennedy Class III. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(4):408–11.
12. Keltjens HMAM, Kayser AF, Hertel R, Battistuzzi PGFCM. Distal extension removable partial dentures supported by implants and residual teeth: Considerations and case reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(2):208–13.
13. Ochoa-Escate D, Valdez-Jurado F, Watanabe R, Pineda-Mejía M, Antonio E, Soledad M, et al. Stress distribution in a mandibular Kennedy Class I implant-assisted removable partial denture: A finite element analysis. Oral. 2025;5(2):31–41.
14. Naguib GH, Hashem ABH, Natto ZS, Abougazia AO, Mously HA, Hamed MT. Effect of implant length and diameter on stress distribution of tooth-implant and implant-supported fixed prostheses: An in vitro finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2023;49(1):46–54.
15. Bhattacharya D, Maiti S, A AP, et al. Finite element analysis of implant-assisted mandibular distal extension removable partial denture: Evaluating stress distribution in premolar versus molar implant positions—An in silico study. Health Sci Rev. 2024.
16. Turker N, Buyukkaplan US. Effects of overdenture attachment systems on stress transmission: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(6):351–60.
17. Sahin N. Attachment systems in implant-supported removable dentures: An update for clinicians. Lokman Hekim Health Sci. 2024:114–20.
18. Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(6):479–83.
19. Chatzivasileiou K, Kotsiomiti E. Implant-assisted removable partial dentures: A systematic review of biomechanical and clinical outcomes. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(8):593–603.
20. Verri FR, Pellizzer EP, Rocha EP, et al. Influence of implant diameter on stress distribution in implant-supported prostheses: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(2):e1–8.
21. Mijiritsky E. Implants in conjunction with removable partial dentures: A literature review. Implant Dent. 2007;16(2):146–54.