METHODS: This review article discusses the experimental and computational methods in the study of HUA. The discussion includes computational fluid dynamics approach and steps involved in the modeling used to investigate the flow characteristics of HUA. From inception to May 2020, databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, BioMed Central, and Web of Science have been utilized to conduct a thorough investigation of the literature. There had been no language restrictions in publication and study design of the database searches. A total of 117 articles relevant to the topic under investigation were thoroughly and critically reviewed to give a clear information about the subject. The article summarizes the review in the form of method of studying the HUA, CFD approach in HUA, and the application of CFD for predicting HUA obstacle, including the type of CFD commercial software are used in this research area.
RESULTS: This review found that the human upper airway was well studied through the application of computational fluid dynamics, which had considerably enhanced the understanding of flow in HUA. In addition, it assisted in making strategic and reasonable decision regarding the adoption of treatment methods in clinical settings. The literature suggests that most studies were related to HUA simulation that considerably focused on the aspects of fluid dynamics. However, there is a literature gap in obtaining information on the effects of fluid-structure interaction (FSI). The application of FSI in HUA is still limited in the literature; as such, this could be a potential area for future researchers. Furthermore, majority of researchers present the findings of their work through the mechanism of airflow, such as that of velocity, pressure, and shear stress. This includes the use of Navier-Stokes equation via CFD to help visualize the actual mechanism of the airflow. The above-mentioned technique expresses the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in its result to demonstrate the real mechanism of the airflow. Apart from that, key result such as wall shear stress (WSS) can be revealed via turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and turbulent energy dissipation (TED), where it can be suggestive of wall injury and collapsibility tissue to the HUA.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior (stress distribution pattern) in the mandibular overdenture, mucosa, bone, and implants when retained with 2 standard implants or 2 mini implants under unilateral or bilateral loading conditions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A patient with edentulous mandible and his denture was scanned with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and a 3D mandibular model was created in the Mimics software program by using the CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) images. The model was transferred to the 3Matics software program to form a 2-mm-thick mucosal layer and to assemble the denture DICOM file. A 12-mm-long standard implant (Ø3.5 mm) and a mini dental implant (Ø2.5 mm) along with the LOCATOR male attachments (height 4 mm) were designed by using the SOLIDWORKS software program. Two standard or 2 mini implants in the canine region were embedded separately in the 3D assembled model. The base of the mandible was fixed, and vertical compressive loads of 100 N were applied unilaterally and bilaterally in the first molar region. The material properties for acrylic resin (denture), titanium (implants), mucosa (tissue), and bone (mandible) were allocated. Maximum von Mises stress and strain values were obtained and analyzed.
RESULTS: Maximum stresses of 9.78 MPa (bilaterally) and 11.98 MPa (unilaterally) were observed in 2 mini implants as compared with 3.12 MPa (bilaterally) and 3.81 MPa (unilaterally) in 2 standard implants. The stress values in the mandible were observed to be almost double the mini implants as compared with the standard implants. The stresses in the denture were in the range of 3.21 MPa and 3.83 MPa and in the mucosa of 0.68 MPa and 0.7 MPa for 2 implants under unilateral and bilateral loading conditions. The strain values shown similar trends with both implant types under bilateral and unilateral loading.
CONCLUSIONS: Two mini implants generated an average of 68.15% more stress than standard implants. The 2 standard implant-retained overdenture showed less stress concentration in and around implants than mini implant-retained overdentures.