SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Two Types of Patient Specific Implants (PSI) and Quad Zygoma Implant (QZI) for Rehabilitation of Post-COVID Maxillary Mucormycosis Defect (PCMMD): Finite Element Analysis

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The residual post-COVID maxillary mucormycosis defect (PCMMD) were extensive, due to unilateral or bilateral maxillectomies. The Goal of rehabilitation of PCMMD is to deliver a prosthetically driven reconstruction. FEA was to evaluate the biomechanical response of PSI struts (PSI 1), PSI Screw retained (PSI 2) and QZI to masticatory load on virtual simulation to improve accuracy and enhance the design.

Aim

To validate and compare the Biomechanical benefit of the PSI struts, PSI Screw retained, QZI in a case of rehabilitation of post-COVID maxillary mucormycosis defect (PCMMD) by FEA study.

Methodology

The result of stress to masticatory load on virtual simulation for (1) Maximum and minimum stress (Von Mises stress); (2) the Displacement (in three positions) and (3) the Deformation (Plastic strain) was compared on virtual simulation for PSI 1 and PSI 2 and QZI.

Conclusion

The FEA and comparative evaluation of PSI 1, PSI 2 and QZI showed a good resistance to displacement. The stress and strain values are low and acceptable. In comparison QZI shows more stress in the anterior region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PSI:

Patient specific implants

QZI:

Quad zygoma implant

PCMMD:

Post-COVID maxillary mucormycosis defect

FEA:

Finite element analysis

References

  1. Ali IE, Chugh A, Cheewin T, Hattori M, Sumita YI (2022) The rising challenge of mucormycosis for maxillofacial prosthodontists in the covid-19 pandemic: a literature review. J Prosthodont Res. https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rattan V, Rai S, Jolly SS, Meena VK (2019) Maxillofacial reconstruction with Patient-specific Implants. J Postgrad Med Educ Res 53(1):34–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Soltanzadeh P, Su JM, Habibabadi SR, Kattadiyil MT (2019) Obturator fabrication incorporating computer-aided design and 3-dimensional printing technology: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 121(4):694–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vega LG, Gielincki W, Fernandes RP (2013) Zygoma implants reconstruction of acquired maxillary bony defects. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 25(2):223–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rathee M, Singh S, Malik S, Divakar S, Alam M (2022) Reconstruction and rehabilitation of maxillary defects secondary to mucormycosis. Saudi J Oral Dent Res 7(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.36348/sjodr.2022.v07i01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhong S, Shi Q, Van Dessel J, Gu Y, Sun Y, Yang S, Politis C (2022) Biomechanical validation of structural optimized patient-specific mandibular reconstruction plate orienting additive manufacturing. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1(224):107023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rotaru H, Schumacher R, Kim SG, Dinu C (2015) Selective laser melted titanium implants: a new technique for the reconstruction of extensive zygomatic complex defects. Maxillofac Plast Recon Surg 37:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Melville JC, Manis CS, Shum JW, Alsuwied D (2019) Single-unit 3D-printed titanium reconstruction plate for maxillary reconstruction: the evolution of surgical reconstruction for maxillary defects—a case report and review of current techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 77(4):874-e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glas HH, Vosselman N, de Visscher SA (2020) The use of 3D virtual surgical planning and computer aided design in reconstruction of maxillary surgical defects. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 28(2):122–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmidt BL, Pogrel MA, Young CW, Sharma A (2004) Reconstruction of extensive maxillary defects using zygomaticus implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:82–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Romeed SA, Malik R, Dunne SM (2014) Zygomatic implants: the impact of zygoma bone support on biomechanics. J Oral Implantol 40(3):231–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Korkmaz FM, Korkmaz YT, Yaluğ S, Korkmaz T (2012) Impact of dental and zygomatic implants on stress distribution in maxillary defects: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Oral Implantol 38(5):557–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wen H, Guo W, Liang R, **ang L, Long G, Wang T, Deng M, Tian W (2014) Finite element analysis of three zygomatic implant techniques for the severely atrophic edentulous maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 111(3):203–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaur V, Patel K, Palka L (2021) An implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient with a bilateral subtotal maxillectomy defect secondary to rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis: a clinical report of a graftless approach. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Freytag M, Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (2011) Finite element analysis in situ. Finite Elem Anal Des 47(9):957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Biegler M, Marko A, Graf B, Rethmeier M (2018) Finite element analysis of in-situ distortion and bulging for an arbitrarily curved additive manufacturing directed energy deposition geometry. Addit Manuf 24:264–272

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mommaerts MY (2018) Evolutionary steps in the design and biofunctionalization of the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant ‘AMSJI’ for the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaman S et al (2017) Stress analysis of zygomatic implants on the augmented maxillary sinus: is it necessary to graft? Implant Dent 26:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Demenko V, Linetskiy I, Linetska L, Yefremov O (2019) Load-carrying capacity of short implants in edentulous posterior maxilla: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys 71:30–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu X et al (2019) Effects of different positions and angles of implants in maxillary edentulous jaw on surrounding bone stress under dynamic loading: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Math Methods Med 23:56. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8074096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saini H, Ackland DC, Gong L, Cheng LK, Röhrle O (2020) Occlusal load modelling significantly impacts the predicted tooth stress response during biting: a simulation study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 23(7):261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miyamoto S, Ujigawa K, Kizu Y, Tonogi M, Yamane GY (2010) Biomechanical threedimensional finite-element analysis of maxillary prostheses with implants. Design of number and position of implants for maxillary prostheses after hemimaxillectomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39:1120–1126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Carnicero A, Peláez A, Restoy-Lozano A, Jacquott I, Perera R (2021) Improvement of an additively manufactured subperiosteal implant structure design by finite elements based topological optimization. Sci Rep 11(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College & Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, 444003, India

    Varsha Sunil Manekar, Abhay N. Datarkar, Ashlesha Ghormode, Surendra Daware & Prashant Pandilwar

  2. Nagpur, India

    Pranav Sapkal

Authors
  1. Varsha Sunil Manekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhay N. Datarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashlesha Ghormode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Surendra Daware
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Prashant Pandilwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pranav Sapkal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Varsha Sunil Manekar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manekar, V.S., Datarkar, A.N., Ghormode, A. et al. Comparison of Two Types of Patient Specific Implants (PSI) and Quad Zygoma Implant (QZI) for Rehabilitation of Post-COVID Maxillary Mucormycosis Defect (PCMMD): Finite Element Analysis. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 22, 688–694 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-01950-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-01950-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation