Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis

Abstract Aim This study aimed to evaluate how different combinations of subperiosteal and superstructure framework materials—titanium, modified PEEK, and PEKK—affect stress distribution on bone in atrophic maxillae, using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods A three-dimensional finite element mode...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohammed A. El-Sawy, Basin El-Khatib, Hesham S. Borg, Mohamed T. Khater
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-07-01
Series:BMC Oral Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06426-z
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849389496507826176
author Mohammed A. El-Sawy
Basin El-Khatib
Hesham S. Borg
Mohamed T. Khater
author_facet Mohammed A. El-Sawy
Basin El-Khatib
Hesham S. Borg
Mohamed T. Khater
author_sort Mohammed A. El-Sawy
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Aim This study aimed to evaluate how different combinations of subperiosteal and superstructure framework materials—titanium, modified PEEK, and PEKK—affect stress distribution on bone in atrophic maxillae, using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods A three-dimensional finite element model of an atrophic maxilla was created from CT data and processed through CAD and ANSYS software. Nine combinations of framework materials were tested under three loading protocols (vertical, oblique, and incisor-directed forces). The subperiosteal framework was fixed in place by 12 mini-screw with different lengths, that the 3 materials were assigned to frameworks in 9 different combinations for the lowest stresses on bone. Three different loading protocols were applied to the prosthetic structure with each of frameworks materials combination. Results Titanium subperiosteal frameworks transferred the least stress to underlying bone and fixation screws, while modified PEEK and PEKK showed higher stress values, particularly under incisor loading. Titanium superstructures exhibited higher internal stresses due to rigidity but protected supporting structures more effectively. Cases under vertical incisors forces showed very high stress levels on cement layer and subperiosteal frame due to bending, and high stresses on mini-screws and bone. These levels were critical for cement layer, modified PEEK, and PEKK framework materials, bone, except, mini screws, that stresses level were in the safe region. Conclusion Within the limitations of this FEA analysis, Titanium is the optimal material for subperiosteal frameworks in atrophic maxillae due to its superior stress distribution. PEKK and modified PEEK may be viable alternatives in patients with reduced functional loading. Clinical significance Titanium subperiosteal framework should be considered the optimum material for subperiosteal implants. Modified PEEK and PEKK material can be considered as alternative material to titanium subperiosteal framework for patients with lower masticatory forces (complete denture on the opposite arch or on the anterior segment). Clinical trial registry number Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06362057) (2024-04-8).
format Article
id doaj-art-17940a8c2be843f6b048d7b2db397757
institution Kabale University
issn 1472-6831
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Oral Health
spelling doaj-art-17940a8c2be843f6b048d7b2db3977572025-08-20T03:41:57ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312025-07-0125111610.1186/s12903-025-06426-zBiomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysisMohammed A. El-Sawy0Basin El-Khatib1Hesham S. Borg2Mohamed T. Khater3Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Menoufia UniversityMinistry of Health and PopulationAssistant Professor of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alsalam UniversityDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Menoufia UniversityAbstract Aim This study aimed to evaluate how different combinations of subperiosteal and superstructure framework materials—titanium, modified PEEK, and PEKK—affect stress distribution on bone in atrophic maxillae, using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods A three-dimensional finite element model of an atrophic maxilla was created from CT data and processed through CAD and ANSYS software. Nine combinations of framework materials were tested under three loading protocols (vertical, oblique, and incisor-directed forces). The subperiosteal framework was fixed in place by 12 mini-screw with different lengths, that the 3 materials were assigned to frameworks in 9 different combinations for the lowest stresses on bone. Three different loading protocols were applied to the prosthetic structure with each of frameworks materials combination. Results Titanium subperiosteal frameworks transferred the least stress to underlying bone and fixation screws, while modified PEEK and PEKK showed higher stress values, particularly under incisor loading. Titanium superstructures exhibited higher internal stresses due to rigidity but protected supporting structures more effectively. Cases under vertical incisors forces showed very high stress levels on cement layer and subperiosteal frame due to bending, and high stresses on mini-screws and bone. These levels were critical for cement layer, modified PEEK, and PEKK framework materials, bone, except, mini screws, that stresses level were in the safe region. Conclusion Within the limitations of this FEA analysis, Titanium is the optimal material for subperiosteal frameworks in atrophic maxillae due to its superior stress distribution. PEKK and modified PEEK may be viable alternatives in patients with reduced functional loading. Clinical significance Titanium subperiosteal framework should be considered the optimum material for subperiosteal implants. Modified PEEK and PEKK material can be considered as alternative material to titanium subperiosteal framework for patients with lower masticatory forces (complete denture on the opposite arch or on the anterior segment). Clinical trial registry number Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06362057) (2024-04-8).https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06426-zFinite element analysisMini screwSubperiosteal and superstructure frameworksMaxillary fixed prosthesisTitaniumModified PEEK
spellingShingle Mohammed A. El-Sawy
Basin El-Khatib
Hesham S. Borg
Mohamed T. Khater
Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis
BMC Oral Health
Finite element analysis
Mini screw
Subperiosteal and superstructure frameworks
Maxillary fixed prosthesis
Titanium
Modified PEEK
title Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis
title_full Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis
title_fullStr Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis
title_short Biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium, modified polyetheretherketone, and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla: a finite element analysis
title_sort biomechanical effects of digitally constructed titanium modified polyetheretherketone and polyetherketoneketone subperiosteal implants on atrophied maxilla a finite element analysis
topic Finite element analysis
Mini screw
Subperiosteal and superstructure frameworks
Maxillary fixed prosthesis
Titanium
Modified PEEK
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06426-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mohammedaelsawy biomechanicaleffectsofdigitallyconstructedtitaniummodifiedpolyetheretherketoneandpolyetherketoneketonesubperiostealimplantsonatrophiedmaxillaafiniteelementanalysis
AT basinelkhatib biomechanicaleffectsofdigitallyconstructedtitaniummodifiedpolyetheretherketoneandpolyetherketoneketonesubperiostealimplantsonatrophiedmaxillaafiniteelementanalysis
AT heshamsborg biomechanicaleffectsofdigitallyconstructedtitaniummodifiedpolyetheretherketoneandpolyetherketoneketonesubperiostealimplantsonatrophiedmaxillaafiniteelementanalysis
AT mohamedtkhater biomechanicaleffectsofdigitallyconstructedtitaniummodifiedpolyetheretherketoneandpolyetherketoneketonesubperiostealimplantsonatrophiedmaxillaafiniteelementanalysis