d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

A comparative nite elemental analysis of glass

abutment supported and unsupported cantilever
xed partial denture
Ravikumar Ramakrishaniah a , Abdulaziz A. Al kheraif b ,
Mohamed A. Elsharawy b , Ayman K. Alsaleh b ,
Karem M. Ismail Mohamed c , Ihtesham Ur Rehman d,
a

College of Applied Medical Sciences, Department of Dental Health, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
College of Applied Medical Sciences, Dental Biomaterials Research Chair, Department of Dental Health,
King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
c Advanced Manufacturing Institute, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
d Department of Material Science and Engineering, The Kroto Research Institute, The University of Shefeld,
Shefeld S3 7HQ, UK
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the load distribu-

Received 31 October 2013

tion and displacement of cantilever prostheses with and without glass abutment by three

Received in revised form

dimensional nite element analysis. Micro-computed tomography was used to study the

28 December 2014

relationship between the glass abutment and the ridge.

Accepted 7 February 2015

Methods. The external surface of the maxilla was scanned, and a simplied nite element
model was constructed. The ZX-27 glass abutment and the maxillary rst and second premolars were created and modied. The solid model of the three-unit cantilever xed partial

Keywords:

denture was scanned, and the tting surface was modied with reference to the created

Finite element analysis

abutments using the 3D CAD system. The nite element analysis was completed in ANSYS.

Micro-computed tomography

The t and total gap volume between the glass abutment and dental model were determined

ZX-27 glass abutment

by Skyscan 1173 high-energy spiral micro-CT scan.

Cantilever xed partial denture

Results. The results of the nite element analysis in this study showed that the cantilever

3D analysis

prosthesis supported by the glass abutment demonstrated signicantly less stress on the

Terminal abutment stress

terminal abutment and overall deformation of the prosthesis under vertical and oblique

Prosthesis deformation

load. Micro-computed tomography determined a gap volume of 6.74162 mm3 .

Gap volume

Signicance. By contacting the mucosa, glass abutments transfer some amount of masticatory load to the residual alveolar ridge, thereby preventing damage to the periodontal
microstructures of the terminal abutment. The passive contact of the glass abutment with
the mucosa not only preserves the health of the mucosa covering the ridge but also permits
easy cleaning. It is possible to increase the success rate of cantilever FPDs by supporting the
cantilevered pontic with glass abutments.
2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author at: Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Kroto Research Institute, The University of Shefeld,
North Campus, Broad Lane, Shefeld S3 7HQ, UK. Tel.: +44 01142225946; fax: +44 01142225945.
E-mail address: i.u.rehman@shefeld.ac.uk (I.U. Rehman).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.003
0109-5641/ 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

515

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

1.

Introduction

Because of patient preference, many dentists have used a xed

partial denture (FPD) with free-end pontics for several years
with low success rate [1]. The estimated 10-year failure rate
is 18.2% for cantilever FPDs. During this period, several biological, mechanical and technical failures, such as abutment
crown and/or root fractures, abutment crown loosening, and
fractures of the FPD, are common [2]. Most of these failures are
undiagnosed until there is caries or fracture with pulp involvement causing pain. The principle cause for the high failure
rate in cantilever FPD is because of the compromised harmony
between the mechanical factors, such as load transfer, and
biological factors, such as periodontal health.
Conventional FPD replacing one or more missing teeth
gains complete support from one or more abutment teeth situated on both the mesial and distal ends of the edentulous
ridge. In contrast, a cantilever FPD gains support from one end
by one or more abutments and the other end remains unsupported [2]. Because the cantilever FPD is supported at only one
end, the functional load distribution from the cantilevered
pontic to the abutment differs from that of a conventional
FPD. Hence, the success of the treatment depends on the
health and number of abutments supporting cantilever FPD,
the functional load applied on the cantilevered units, the
type of occlusion [36] and oral hygiene [7]. Cantilevered pontics generate tilting and rotational forces on the terminal
abutments, unlike in natural dentition, where the forces are
transferred along the long axis of the tooth [8]. These oblique
forces cause stress-induced microdamage to the supporting
periodontium [9]. This damage is even pronounced when a
cantilever FPD replaces posterior teeth because the muscles of
mastication exert the strongest masticatory load in the posterior segment of the dental arch. To reduce this damage, single
cantilevered pontics must be supported by at least two periodontally healthy abutments [3,10].
Placement of one or more implants to support the cantilevered end is also an option that is recommended by many
experts [1117]. Proper case selection, implant placement and
prosthesis design based on biological and mechanical aspects
can better distribute the masticatory load and preserve the
health of the abutment [16,17]. However, not all cases can be
treated with implants because a number of factors, such as (i)
medical health of the patient, (ii) morphology of the ridge, (iii)
anatomy of the bone, (iv) age and (v) nancial aspects, may
prevent patients from opting for implant treatment. Hence,
there is a need to develop a cost-effective and suitable system
that meets these important parameters, and researchers have
developed a glass abutment system that will improve the force
distribution from cantilevered pontics.
Glass abutments are fabricated to rest on the edentulous
ridge to support the cantilevered pontics. By resting on the
ridge, some of the masticatory load generated on the cantilevered pontic is transferred to the ridge, thereby reducing
the damage to the abutment caused by vertical and oblique
forces [18]. However, active contact of the glass abutment and
the masticatory forces transferred directly to the ridge can
adversely affect the health of the mucosa over the edentulous
ridge. Therefore, the objective of this research was to study

Table 1 Elastic properties of the materials used for the

nite element analysis model.

Cortical bone
Cancellous bone
Enamel
Dentin
ZX-27 Glass
Nickel chromium alloy
Periodontal ligament
Pulp
Oral mucous membrane

Youngs
modulus (MPa)

Poissons ratio

1340
150
80, 000
15, 000
69, 000
200, 000
6.9
5.4
7.5

0.30
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.19
0.29
0.45 [35]
0.44 [35]
0.45 [36]

and compare the functional load distribution and displacement of the cantilever FPD with and without glass abutments
using 3D nite element analysis. This analysis was preferred
over 2D analysis because 3D analysis provides an actual representation of the stress behavior of the supporting alveolar
bone. Furthermore, for the rst time, micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to study the relationship between
the glass abutment and the ridge.

2.

Materials and methods

The external surface of the dry human maxilla, which was

edentulous in the right posterior area, was scanned using a 3D
laser scanner (Exascan, Creaform Inc., rue St-Georges, Levis,
Quebec) to construct a simplied nite element model of the
maxillary bone. The ZX-27 glass abutment and maxillary rst
and second molars were created and modied following the
fundamental principles of xed prosthodontics [19,20] using a
3D CAD system (Catia V5). The modied molars with 3 roots
consisted of three co-axial cylinders. The inner most cylinder represented the pulp with a diameter of 1 mm, the middle
cylinder represented dentin with a diameter of 2 mm, and the
outer cylinder represented enamel, with a diameter of 1 mm.
The ZX glass abutment was created to rest on the soft tissue adjacent to the maxillary second molar (Fig. 1). The solid
model of the three unit nickel chromium cantilever FPD was
scanned using a 3D laser scanner, and the tting surface was
modied with reference to the created abutments using a 3D
CAD system (Catia, v5) (Fig. 1). The entire STL (Stereo Lithography) le was imported to ANSYS 5.0 (ANSYS, Inc. Southpointe,
Canonsburg, PA). The elastic properties of the cortical bone
[21], cancellous bone [21], enamel [22], dentin [22], pulp, periodontal ligament, oral mucous membrane, glass abutments
[23] and cantilever nickel chromium alloy [24] FPD are tabulated in Table 1. The model with the glass abutment had
995,030 nodes and 635,738 elements, and the model without
the glass abutment had 991,894 nodes and 634,039 elements.
The thickness of the gingiva was 2 mm, and the thickness of
cortical bone was 3 mm. The nite element model was subjected to simulated masticatory forces with a vertical and
oblique surface load. A vertical static surface load of 448 N [25]
was distributed over and perpendicular to the occlusal table
to simulate the natural functional load along the long axis
of the cantilever FPD. To simulate the lateral functional load
during eccentric mandibular movements, an oblique static
surface load of 300 N [26] was distributed at an angle of 45

516

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

Fig. 1 Simplied nite element analysis models.

Fig. 2 Application of vertical and oblique functional loads.

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

517

Fig. 3 Stresses created at the pontic-retainer interface with and without a glass abutment.

to the occlusal table from the lingual direction. Finite element

analysis was conducted with and without glass abutments
to determine the stress distribution and displacement of the
cantilever FPD (Fig. 2), the boundary conditions of the prepared abutments, glass abutment and cantilever xed partial
denture were xed and constraints were placed on the nodes
located far from the pontic connector area on the mesial and
distal surfaces of the maxillary segment. The applied masticatory load was distributed equally throughout the cantilever
FPD. The convergence of the nite element model was examined at the lateral surface of the maxillary segment on the
surface of the cortical bone.
Furthermore, to study the t surface and total gap volume
between the glass abutment and dental model, a glass abutment to support the cantilevered maxillary rst molar pontic
was fabricated using the ZX-27 attractive glass abutment system (Hypodent international s.r.o, Capajevova 4, 04011 Kosice,
Slovenska republika). ZX-27 glass abutments are prefabricated, chemically treated, acid resistant glass that melt at
15601600 C. After selecting the suitable size, the glass abutment was mounted on the abutment holder and heated until
it turned red. At 1600 C, the heated abutment was carefully pressed over the cast at the predetermined area. Once
the abutment cooled, it was polished using diamond polishing burs. The fabricated glass abutment and the dental
model were scanned using a Skyscan 1173 high-energy spiral
scan micro CT (BRUKER-MICROCT, Kartuizersweg 3B, Kontich,
Belgium). The X-ray generator of the micro CT was operated
at an accelerated potential voltage of 95 kV with a current

of 120 A using a 0.25 mm brass lter with a resolution of

68.66 mm pixels. Projection images were recorded in steps of
0.4 from 0 to 360 . The three-dimensional reconstruction
was performed using the Insta Recon Software. Beam hardening effect reduction of 30% and 12% ring artifact correction
was used to produce the precise cross-sectional image. The
resulting data set of 66.68 micrometer voxels of each cross
section were analyzed using the CT An (version 1.13.11.0+)
software. The main aim of the scan was to calculate the GAP
distance and gap volume between the glass abutment and
the dental model, which was measured in mm2 . The gap distance was calculated in three standardized directions (left,
mid, right). The 3D visualization was performed using CT VOL
version (2.2.3.0) (Fig. 5).

3.

Results

The stresses created at the cantilevered pontic and the distal

most abutment interface and the deformation of the FPD with
and without the glass abutment are presented in Figs. 3 and 4.
The cantilever FPD without the glass abutment had the highest stress and deformation.

4.

Deformation

After the application of both vertical and oblique loads, the

total deformation was measured at the pontic connector
area. The measured deformation of the cantilevered pontic

518

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

Fig. 4 Total deformation of the cantilevered pontic with and without a glass abutment.

supported by the glass abutment was less than that of pontic without the glass abutment support. After the application
of a vertical load, the pontic supported by the glass abutment
showed deformation of 1.1233 mm, whereas the pontic without the glass abutment showed a deformation of 1.2266 mm.
After the application of an oblique load, the deformation
was 8.5774 mm for the pontic with the glass abutment and
9.2381 mm for the pontic without the glass abutment.

5.

Stresses

The application of a vertical load resulted in stress of 27.77 MPa

on the pontic with a glass abutment, whereas the pontic
without the glass abutment experienced stress of 43.678 MPa,
which is approximately 2 times more. The application of an
oblique load created stresses of 34.289 MPa on the pontic with
the glass abutment and 53.745 MPa on the pontic without the
glass abutment, which was also approximately 2 times more.
Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) images of the
model and glass abutments are shown in Fig. 4. Only the point
contact of the glass abutment with the model was noted. The
gap distance was 0.2 mm on the buccal side, 0.4 mm on the
lingual side, and in the midsection adjacent to the point contact, the measured gap was 0.1 mm. A total gap volume of
6.74162 mm3 was observed.

6.

Discussion

The present study employed three dimensional nite element

analyses to determine the nature, direction and amount of

deformation and stress created on terminal abutments. 3D

nite element analysis has been a valuable tool for measuring and visualizing mechanical behavior of cantilever FPD.
However, the use of nite element analysis in this study has
some limitations, including the load application and simulation of the oral environment. The masticatory load from the
tooth alone is duplicated, whereas non-masticatory forces,
such as forces from the tongue and muscles of mastication are
not simulated. Regarding the simulation of the oral environment, the parameters of the tooth and supporting structures
were considered, whereas the oral temperature and boundary conditions were omitted because the current research is a
simulated in vitro mathematical study.
This study analyzed the effects of vertical and oblique loads
on the deformation of three-unit glass abutment supported
and unsupported cantilever FPD. The results obtained from
these analyses were in agreement with previous studies conducted by Romeed et al. [27,28], and Wang et al. [29]. The
maximum stress was observed at the connector area, just
distal to the terminal abutment in both supported and unsupported glass abutment prostheses (Fig. 3). After the application
of a vertical load, greater deformation was observed at the
most distal end of the cantilevered pontic, and after the
application of an oblique load, maximum deformation was
observed in the occlusal thirds of the prostheses (Fig. 4).
However, the deformation and stresses created were less in
the glass abutment supported prostheses than in the unsupported prostheses. This may be due to the difference in the
amount of vertical displacement. The glass abutment prevented further displacement of the cantilevered end resulting

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

519

Fig. 5 Stresses created at root/bone interface.

in lower stresses on the terminal abutments than in unsupported FPD. After the application of both vertical and oblique
loads, the displacement of the prostheses was mainly in
the vertical direction because the cantilevered end remained
unsupported distally. Deformation of the prostheses is the
major factor that determines the success of FPD treatment
[30]. Excessive deformation during mastication transfers damaging forces to the terminal abutment, aggravates the clinical
symptoms of periodontally compromised abutment teeth and
damages the mucosa covering the edentulous alveolar ridge
at the cantilevered end. The amount of vertical displacement
depends on the number and mesio-distal length of the cantilevered pontic; increasing the number of cantilevered pontics
increases the amount of vertical displacement, and the extent
of displacement may be more when observed clinically than
when measured by nite element analyses. Hence, every effort
must be made to limit the displacement of prostheses, especially in posterior cantilever FPDs.
Simple cantilever FPD can be used to replace anterior teeth
by increasing the number of abutments to provide maximum support because masticatory forces are minimal in the
anterior segment. In contrast, simply increasing the number
of abutments in the posterior segment does not drastically
improve the success rate because the generated masticatory
load is greater. Yokoyama et al. [31] and Correa et al. [32] recommended the placement of implants to support cantilevered
pontics through a nite element study because it reduces
the amount of stress created on the supporting abutment.
However, there are several clinical situations where implant

treatment is contraindicated. In such situations, glass abutments serve as an alternative and non-invasive method of
providing support for the cantilevered pontic to limit deformation under a vertical load, thereby minimizing stresses created
on the terminal abutment. Glass abutments are chemically
treated, biocompatible and fabricated to rest on soft tissues
and can be cemented to cantilevered pontics. This chemically
modied glass abutment can be shaped to any pontic design,
and its smooth, transparent surface not only prevents plaque
accumulation but also enhances esthetics.
However, active contact of the glass abutment and transfer
of masticatory load can have adverse effects on the resorption
pattern of the residual alveolar ridges. Hence, micro-CT analysis was performed to study the relationship between glass
abutments and residual alveolar ridges. The results of the
micro-CT showed point contact (0.1 mm) of the glass abutment at the crest of the residual alveolar ridge (Fig. 5). The
glass abutment is cemented to the cantilevered pontic, and if
deformation occurs during mastication, then the glass abutment prevents further displacement of the cantilevered pontic
by contacting the ridge and transferring some of the masticatory forces to the residual alveolar ridge without damaging
the periodontal health of the terminal abutment. Kerenyi performed cytological, histological and elemental analyses of the
oral mucosa of patients with glass abutments and reported
no adverse effects on the oral mucosa. The surface and chemical composition of the glass abutments did not change after
being in the oral cavity for 8 months [33]. Keszthelyi [34] studied the hemolytic activity of glass abutments on rabbits, and

520

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

Fig. 6 Gap distance and gap volume between the glass abutment and the dental model.

the results of that study showed hemolytic activity below 30%,

which is considered low and non-toxic. Hence, the use of glass
abutments for cantilevered pontics increases the success rate
of cantilevered FPDs by reducing the vertical displacement of
the cantilevered pontics and reducing stress on the terminal
abutment (Fig. 6).

7.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, we determined that glass

abutment supported cantilever FPDs signicantly reduce the
amount of deformation of cantilever pontics under vertical
and oblique masticatory forces. Glass abutments contact the
mucosa and transfer some of the masticatory load to the
residual alveolar ridge, thereby preventing damage to the
periodontal microstructures of the terminal abutment. The
passive contact of the glass abutment with the mucosa not
only preserves the health of the mucosa covering the ridges
but also permits easy cleaning. It is possible to increase the
success rate of cantilever FPDs by supporting the cantilevered
pontics with glass abutments.
However, nite elemental analysis is a simulated in vitro
mathematical study, further research work is required to validate the experiment using suitable devise such as strain
gauges. In vivo clinical study on human patients is recommended to evaluate the acceptability and biocompatibility of
the glass abutment.

Acknowledgement
We would like to extend our appreciation to the Research
Centre, College of Applied Medical Sciences and Deanship of
Scientic Research at King Saud University for funding this
research.

references

[1] Walls AW. Cantilever FPDs have lower success rates than
end abutted FPDs after 10-years of follow-up. J Evid Based
Dent Pract 2010;10:413.
[2] Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K. Assessment of
various factors for feasibility of xed cantilever bridge: a
review study. ISRN Dent 2012;2012. Article ID 259891.
[3] Hill EE. Decision making for treatment planning a
cantilevered xed partial denture. Compend Contin Educ
Dent 2009;30(9):5805.
[4] Somogyi E, Fejerdy P, Lindeisz F, Linninger M. Cantilever
bridges a cross sectional study. Fogorv Sz
2000;93(11):33541.
[5] Laurell L, Lundgren D, Falk H, Hugoson A. Long term
prognosis of extensive polyunit cantilevered xed partial
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66(4):54552.
[6] Stockton LW. Cantilever xed partial denture a literature
review. J Can Dent Assoc 1997;63(2):11821.
[7] Hammerle CH, Ungerer MC, Fantoni PC, Bragger U, Burgin W,
Lang NP. Long term analysis of biologic and technical

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 514521

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]

aspects of xed partial denture with cantilevers. Int J

Prosthodont 2000;13(5):40915.
Himmel R, Pilo R, Assif D, Aviv I. The cantilever xed partial
denture a literature review. J Prosthet Dent
1992;67(4):4847.
McCartney JW. Cantilever rests: an alternative to the
unsupported distal cantilever of osseointegrated
implant-supported prostheses for the edentulous mandible.
J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(5):8179.
Picton DC, Likeman PR. An investigation of the
displacement of xed bridges and their abutment under
occlusal load in monkeys (Macaca Fascicularis). Restorative
Dent 1991;7(1):811.
Becker CM. Cantilever xed prostheses utilizing dental
implants: a 10 year retrospective analysis. Quintessence Int
2004;35(6):43741.
Rodriguez AM, Aquilino SA, Lund PS, Ryther JS, Southard TE.
Evaluation of strain at the terminal abutment site of xed
mandibular implant prosthesis during cantilever loading. J
Prosthodont 1993;2(2):93102.
Romeo E, Tomasi C, Finini I, Casentini P, Lops D. Implant
supported xed prosthesis in partially edentulous jaws: a
cohort prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res
2009;20(11):127885.
Falk H. On occlusal forces in dentitions with implant
supported xed cantilever prostheses. Swed Dent J Suppl
1990;69:140.
Cohen SR, Orenstein JH. The use of attachments in
combination implant and natural tooth xed partial
dentures: a technical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
1994;9(2):2304.
Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The
inuence of implant location and length on stress
distribution for three unit implant supported posterior
cantilever xed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent
2004;91(3):23440.
Akca K, Iplikcioglu H. Finite element stress analysis of the
effect of short implant usage in place of cantilever
extensions in mandibular posterior edentulism. J Oral
Rahabil 2002;29(4):3506.
Li A, Chen X, Xu Z, Zhang D. Study on the digital laser
speckle technique of three dimensional displacement of
cantilever xed partial denture under oblique loading.
Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi 2013;30(1):1214.
Shillingburg HT. Fundamentals of xed prosthodontics. 3rd
ed. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 1997. p. 11938.
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary xed
prosthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2001. p. 166201.
El-Anwar MI, El-Zawahry MM. A three dimensional nite
element study on dental implant design. J Genet Eng
Biotechnol 2011;9:7782.
Rodrigues FP, Silikas N, Watts DC, Ballester RY. Finite
element analysis of bonded model class I restorations after
shrinkage. Dent Mater 2012;28:12332.

521

[23] Vradi K, Hegeds C. Prosthesis supported by ZX-27

attractive glass abutment system and comparative strength
test of non supported, open ended bridge, performed by
nite element method for ORKI licence; 1997,
March 20.
[24] Chang S-H, Lin C-L, Hsue S-S, Lin Y-S, Huang S-R.
Biomechanical analysis of the effect of implant diameter
and bone quality in short implants placed in the atrophic
posterior maxilla. Med Eng Phys 2012;(34):
15360.
[25] Homewood CI. Cracked tooth syndrome-incidence, clinical
ndings and treatment. Aust Dent J 1998;43(4):16.
[26] Saime S, Cehreli MC, Yalcin E. The inuence of functional
forces on the biomechanics of implant supported prostheses
a review. J Dent 2002;30:27182.
[27] Romeed SA, Fok SL, Wilson NH. Finite element analysis of
xed partial denture replacement. J Oral Rehabil
2004;31:120817.
[28] Romeed SA, Fok SL, Wilson NH. The mechanical behaviour
of cantilever xed partial dentures in shortened dental arch
therapy: a 2-D nite element analysis. Eur J Prosthodont
Restor Dent 2004;1(12):217.
[29] Wang CH, Lee HE, Wang CC, Chang HP. Method to improve a
periodontally involved terminal abutment of a cantilever
xed partial denture a nite element study. J Oral Rehabil
1998;25:2537.
[30] Awadalla HA, Azarbal M, Ismail YH, el-Ibiari W.
Three-dimensional nite element stress analysis of a
cantilever xed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent
1992;68:2438.
[31] Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The
inuence of implant location and length on stress
distribution for three unit implant supported posterior
cantilever xed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent
2004;91:23440.
[32] Correa S, Ivancik J, Isaza JF, Naranjo M. Evaluation of the
structural behaviour of three and four implant supported
xed prosthetic restorations by nite element analysis. J
Prosthodont Res 2012;56:1109.
[33] Kerenyi T. Gingiva changes of people having glass abutment
Bridge. Cytological, histological, element analysis
examinations for ORKI licence Budapest; 1997,
February 15.
[34] Keszthelyi G. In vitro haemolysis test to determine
haemolytic activity of materials being in contact with bone
and soft tissue. For ORKI licence Debrecen; 1997, 14 March.
[35] Pasha MF. Validity of secondary abutment support for a
cantilever maxillary canine pontic a nite element
analysis (in-vitro study). Int J Contemp Dent
2010;1(September (1)):613.
[36] Fatihallah AA. Effect of soft liner denture base thickness on
load transmitted to the underlying mucosa. A three
dimensional nite element analysis. J Bagh Coll Dent
2009;21(3):215.