Stress analysis of effects of nonrigid

connectors on fixed partial dentures

with pier abutments
Selcuk Oruc, DDS, PhD,a Oguz Eraslan, DDS, PhD,b H. Alper
Tukay, DDS, PhD,c and Arzu Atay, DDS, PhDd
Selcuk University, Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey; Gulhane
Military Medicine Academy, Istanbul, Turkey

Statement of problem. In some patients, the pattern of missing teeth may require the use of a fixed partial denture
(FPD) with an intermediate pier abutment. Information is needed regarding the biomechanical behavior and the posi-
tion of a nonrigid connector for this treatment option.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, by means of finite element method (FEM), the effects of rigid and
nonrigid design types on stress distribution for 5-unit FPDs with pier abutments.

Material and methods. A 3-dimensional cross-section FEM model (SAP 2000) simulating a 5-unit metal ceramic FPD
with a pier abutment with rigid or nonrigid designs (connector location at the mesial region of the second molar, at
the distal region of the second premolar, at the mesial region of the second premolar, and at the distal region of the
canine) was developed. In the model, the canine, second premolar, and second molar served as abutments. A sup-
porting periodontal ligament and alveolar bone (cortical and trabecular) were modeled. A 50-N static vertical occlu-
sal load was applied on the cusp of each abutment to calculate the stress distributions. Three different types of load
were evaluated: loading of all cusps to simulate maximum centric occlusion contacts, loading of the canine to simu-
late a single anterior contact, and loading of the second molar to simulate a posterior contact.

Results. The analysis of the von Mises stress values revealed that maximum stress concentrations were located at the
load areas for all models. Also, for all models, the highest stress values were located at connectors and cervical regions
of abutment teeth, especially at the pier abutment.

Conclusions. The area of maximum stress concentration at the pier abutment was decreased by the use of a nonrigid
connector at the distal region of the second premolar. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:185-192)

Clinical Implications
Because the pier abutment used in rigid FPDs can act as a
fulcrum, the restoration of a terminal abutment may become
loose. When fabricating a 5-unit FPD from the maxillary canine
to second molar with a pier abutment, the use of a nonrigid
connector at the distal of the second premolar may reduce po-
tentially excessive stress concentration on the pier abutment.

Funded by the Selcuk University Research Projects Council (BAP).

a
Professor, Gulhane Military Medicine Academy.
b
Research Assistant, Selcuk University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics.
c
Assistant Professor, Gulhane Military Medicine Academy.
d
Assistant Professor, Gulhane Military Medicine Academy.
Oruc et al
186
In some patients, the pattern of
missing teeth may require the use of
an FPD with a pier abutment. Resto-
ration of 2 missing teeth and an in-
termediate pier abutment with a rigid
FPD is not an ideal treatment.1-3 When
an occlusal load is applied to the re-
tainer on the abutment tooth at 1 end
of an FPD with a pier abutment, the
pier abutment may act as a fulcrum
(Fig. 1).4,5 Thus, tensile forces may
then be generated between the re-
tainer and abutment at the other end
of the restoration.5 Anterior or poste-
rior abutments may experience extru-
sive forces during fulcrum action, and
resultant tensile force at the retainer-
to-abutment interface5 may result in
potential loss of retention for these
restorations.4 It has been reported
that rigid FPDs with pier abutments
are associated with higher debonding
rates than short-span prostheses.6,7
Thus, these restorations may result in
marginal leakage and caries.4 Nonrig-
id connectors are suggested as a solu-
tion to these difficulties.4,6
A 50- to 100-g force may cause ex-
trusion of abutments, depending on
the location of the tooth in the den-
tal arch.6,8 The reaction of the peri-
odontium to extrusive forces on the
teeth associated with FPDs with pier
abutments is not clearly understood.
These problems may be compensated
for by converting an FPD with a rigid
pier abutment into one with a non-
rigid connector.4,6,9 Lin et al10 report-
ed that a nonrigid connector has the
ability to separate the splinted units.
Thus, the use of a nonrigid connector
has been suggested and is commonly
used with FPDs.11-16
Direct experimental measurement
of stress distribution at these loca-
tions is difficult. However, the FEM
is a well accepted, theoretical meth-
od for calculating stress distribution
within complex structures which al-
lows investigators to evaluate the in-
fluence of model parameter variation
once the model has been correctly
defined.17,18 The FEM has been shown
to be a useful tool when investigating
complex systems that are difficult to
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
1 Schematic illustration of pier abutment acting as fulcrum (blue repre-
sents anterior loading, and red represents posterior loading situations).
standardize during in vitro and in vivo
investigations.17 Also, the FEM results
do not vary by repetition of the analy-
sis and are restricted by the number
of nodules and elements used in the
model and the elastic constants at-
tributed to the elements.17 Thus, in
the present study, FEM was used to
locate the ideal placement of a non-
rigid connector for a pier abutment
FPD by evaluating different placement
variations. The choice of a 2-dimen-
sional (2-D) or 3-dimensional (3-D)
FEM is important.19 Even though the
preparation of a 3-D model is more
time consuming and costly, recent de-
velopments in computer technology
have yielded more reliable results.19 It
is possible to acquire more accurate
results as the similarity of FEM mod-
els to vital structures increases. How-
ever, FEM has limitations related to
assumptions that must sometimes be
used while modeling. Since it is more
comprehensive than the photoelastic
technique,20 3-D FEM analysis was
selected as the evaluation method in
this investigation. The FEM provides
mechanical responses and alters pa-
rameters in a more controllable man-
ner, driving its common use as an an-
alytical tool in dental biomechanical
studies.10,18,20-24 The purpose of this
study was to investigate and com-
pare, by means of FEM stress analysis,
the functional stresses generated un-
der various occlusal forces with rigid
and nonrigid designs for 5-unit FPDs
with pier abutments. The null hypoth-
Volume 99 Issue 3
esis was that the use of nonrigid con-
nectors for FPDs with pier abutments
would not affect the stress distribu-
tion.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study was conducted using
a 3-D FEM and software (SAP2000;
Computers & Structures, Inc, Berk-
ley, Calif ). A 3-D cross-sectional FEM
model was fabricated to represent a
missing mandibular first premolar and
first molar to perform the computer
simulation. The model consisted of
a 5-unit metal ceramic FPD, with the
canine, second premolar, and second
molar as abutment teeth supported
by simulated periodontal ligament
(PDL) and alveolar bone (cortical and
trabecular) structures.
The geometry used for the tooth
model was previously described by
Wheeler.25 On the basis of the root-
form geometry of teeth, a simplified
0.25-mm PDL and a cortical shell
(1.5 mm) were developed (Fig. 2),
according to published values.26 To
simulate the sliding function of a non-
rigid connector, surfaces between the
patrix and matrix of the nonrigid con-
nectors were assigned as free (non-
bonded) touching faces. Five FPDs
were simulated, 1 with a rigid design
and 4 with nonrigid designs, using
varying locations and orientations
for the nonrigid connectors. The ma-
trix attachment was located within
the abutment tooth for all scenarios.
Oruc et al
March 2008
Design types are summarized in Table
I. A 50-N static vertical occlusal load
was applied on each cusp to calculate
the stress distributions.17 Three differ-
ent loading methods were used: load-
ing of all teeth to simulate maximum
centric occlusion contacts, loading of
the canine to simulate a single anteri-
or contact, and loading of the second
molar to simulate a single posterior
contact.
Each mathematical model includ-
ed 12,000 nodes and 9545 (8-node
solid brick) elements. The nodes at
the surfaces of the alveolar bone in
the FEM models were fixed in all di-
rections as the boundary condition.
Materials used in this study were as-
sumed to be homogenous and iso-
tropic. Elastic properties of materials
187
(Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s
ratio (ν)) are determined from the
literature and presented in Table II.
Results were determined by consider-
ing von Mises criteria.27-32 Calculated
numeric data were transformed into
color graphics to better visualize the
mechanical phenomena in the mod-
els.

2 Illustration of materials modeled in FEM model.

Table I. Design configurations of 5-unit FPDs evaluated
Design Type Rigid/Nonrigid Location of Nonrigid Connector

R Rigid Not applicable

MPosterior Nonrigid Mesial to posterior terminal abutment

DPier Nonrigid Distal to pier abutment

MPier Nonrigid Mesial to pier abutment

DAnterior Nonrigid Distal to anterior terminal abutment

Table II. Mechanical properties of materials17

Material Elastic Modulus (E)(GPa) Poisson’s Ratio (ν)

Feldspathic porcelain 82.8 0.35

NiCr alloy 206 0.33

Dentin 18 0.33

Pulp tissue 0.003 0.45

Periodontal ligament 0.069 0.45

Cortical bone 13.7 0.3

Spongy bone 1.37 0.3

Oruc et al
188
RESULTS
The analysis of the von Mises
stress values revealed that areas of
maximum stress concentration were
located at the loading areas for all
models (2 MPa). Also, for all models,
the highest stress values were located
at connectors and cervical regions of
abutment teeth, especially at the pier
abutment. The stress concentration
areas were found at root surfaces and
apical tooth locations as well.
For the rigid model, when the me-
sial terminal abutment was loaded,
stresses were evident at the cusp tip
(2 MPa) and at the root surface (0.46
MPa) of the loaded abutment, and at
the mesial region of the pier abutment
(0.46 MPa). A relatively low stress con-
centration was observed at the distal
terminal abutment (Fig. 3). When the
distal terminal abutment was loaded,
stresses were detected the cusp tip (2
MPa) and at the root surface (1.08
MPa) of the loaded abutment, and
at the distal region of the pier abut-
ment (0.31 MPa). A relatively low
stress concentration was detected at
the mesial terminal abutment (Fig. 3).
When all teeth were loaded, maximum
stress concentration was observed at
3 von Mises stress values and distributions of rigid (R) (anterior loading (top right), posterior loading (top left),
all teeth loaded (bottom)). Pink to blue colors represent stress values from lower to higher, respectively.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
the cusp tips, connectors, and cervi-
cal regions of abutments (2 MPa).
Also, other stress concentration areas
(1.54 MPa) were observed at the root
surfaces of the pier and distal terminal
abutment (Fig. 3). Maximum princi-
pal stresses in the pier abutment were
0.77 MPa at anterior loading, 1.38
MPa at posterior loading, and 2 MPa
when all teeth were loaded.
In the design consisting of a non-
rigid connector at the mesial region
of the posterior terminal abutment
(MPosterior), the stress distributions
at the anterior loading position were
similar to that of the rigid model,
but for posterior loading, stresses
were concentrated around the distal
terminal abutment (1.08 MPa) (Fig.
4). When all teeth of the MPosterior
model were loaded, stress concentra-
tions were similar to those of the rigid
model, but stress concentration at the
distal root surface of the pier abut-
ment (2 MPa) was higher and extend-
ed over a larger area than in the rigid
model. Also, a higher stress concen-
tration (2 MPa) was observed at the
distal connector of the pier abutment
(Fig. 4). Maximum principal stresses
in the pier abutment were 0.46 MPa
at anterior loading, 1.23 MPa at pos-
Volume 99 Issue 3
terior loading, and 2 MPa when all
teeth were loaded.
The nonrigid connector at the dis-
tal region of the pier abutment (DPi-
er) showed no considerable stress
concentrations at the distal abut-
ment with anterior loading (Fig. 5).
The same situation occurred at the
mesial terminal abutment when the
distal terminal abutment was loaded
(Fig. 5). The stress concentration lev-
els were lowest at the pier abutment
(0.15 MPa) in both situations, relative
to other design types (Fig. 5). When
all of the teeth were loaded, the maxi-
mum stress concentration (2 MPa)
at the pier abutment was lower than
other design types, but relatively high
stress concentrations were observed
at the mesial root surface of the dis-
tal terminal abutment (2 MPa) (Fig.
5). Maximum principal stresses in the
pier abutment were 0.62 MPa at the
anterior load point, 0.31 MPa at the
posterior load point, and 2 MPa when
all teeth were loaded.
When the anterior terminal abut-
ment was loaded, the nonrigid con-
nector at the mesial region of the pier
abutment (MPier) showed low stress
concentration at the pier abutment
(Fig. 6), similar to DPier. However,
Oruc et al
March 2008 189

4 von Mises stress values and distributions of MPosterior (anterior loading (top right), posterior loading (top
left), all teeth loaded (bottom)). Pink to blue colors represent stress values from lower to higher, respectively.

5 von Mises stress values and distributions of DPier (anterior loading (top right), posterior loading (top left),
all teeth loaded (bottom)). Pink to blue colors represent stress values from lower to higher, respectively.

when the distal terminal abutment
was loaded, there were lower stress
concentrations at the pier abutment
(0.46 MPa), and stress distributions
at the posterior terminal abutment
were similar to those of the rigid mod-
el (Fig. 6). When all the teeth were
loaded, stress concentrations were
observed at the cusp tips, connec-
Oruc et al
tors, cervical regions of abutments (2
MPa), and root surfaces (1.38 MPa)
for all 3 abutments (Fig. 6). Maximum
principal stresses in the pier abutment
were 0.15 MPa for anterior loading,
1.23 MPa for posterior loading, and 2
MPa when all teeth were loaded.
For the nonrigid connector at the
distal region of the anterior terminal
abutment design (DAnterior), when
the terminal abutments were load-
ed, stress distributions were similar
to those of the rigid model (Fig. 7).
When all teeth were loaded, stress
concentrations were similar to those
of the rigid model. Stress concentra-
tion at the root surface of the pier
abutment was similar (1.54 MPa), but
190 Volume 99 Issue 3

6 von Mises stress values and distributions of MPier (anterior loading (top right), posterior loading (top left),
all teeth loaded (bottom)). Pink to blue colors represent stress values from lower to higher, respectively.

7 von Mises stress values and distributions of DAnterior (anterior loading (top right), posterior loading (top
left), all teeth loaded (bottom)). Pink to blue colors represent stress values from lower to higher, respectively.

the value of 1.54 MPa was observed in
a larger area than in the rigid model.
Also, stress concentrations observed
at the coronal aspect and the mesial
and distal cervical regions of the pier
abutment were high (2 MPa) (Fig. 7).
Maximum principal stresses in the
pier abutment were 0.46 MPa for an-
terior loading, 1.23 MPa for posterior
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
loading, and 2 MPa when all teeth
were loaded.
DISCUSSION
The results support rejection of the
null hypothesis: that the use of non-
rigid connectors for FPDs with pier
abutments would not affect the stress
distribution. It was observed that the
rigid and nonrigid connector designs
have effects on stress distributions in
5-unit FPDs with pier abutments. The
FEM results are presented in terms of
the von Mises stress values. The von
Mises stresses depend on the entire
stress field and are used as indicators
of the possibility of damage occur-
Oruc et al
March 2008
rence.32 Since the connectors repre-
sent the greatest stress concentration
areas with FPDs, the placement of
nonrigid connectors in these regions
is recommended.15,16 Thus, nonrigid
connectors were simulated in these
regions in the current study.
Moulding et al16 performed a pho-
toelastic stress analysis of supporting
alveolar bone as modified by nonrigid
connectors. The authors reported
that the stress fields change depend-
ing on the location of nonrigid con-
nectors. The findings of the current
study are in agreement with Moulding
et al,16 as the stress fields were differ-
ent at various locations of nonrigid
connectors. Also, the authors stated
that the rigid FPD distributes stresses
vertically and evenly, and the nonrigid
connectors located at the distal of
canine and at the mesial of molar de-
signs distribute stresses evenly; in fact,
as well as the rigid FPD. In agreement
with their findings, the results of the
current study demonstrated that the
stresses were distributed evenly with
the rigid FPD design when all teeth
were loaded. The stress distributions
of nonrigid connectors located at the
distal of the canine and at the mesial
of the molar were similar to the rigid
design when all teeth were loaded.
It has also been reported that rigid
and nonrigid connectors exhibit dif-
ferences in stress distributions and
concentrations within the supporting
bone structure.4,9,16 The stress distri-
butions in bone structure in the cur-
rent study concur with those reported
in previous studies.4,9,16 When a rigidly
designed FPD with a pier abutment
acts as a lever, high stress concentra-
tions may occur at pier abutments,
and excessive displacements may be
observed at terminal abutments, re-
sulting in damage to the abutment
teeth. Thus, nonrigid connectors can
be used to eliminate the fulcrum ac-
tion of a pier abutment.6 The ideal
placement of a nonrigid connector is
reported to be in the distal region of
the pier abutment.4,9
A comparison of stress distribu-
tions for different design types re-
Oruc et al
vealed that high stress values were lo-
cated at the connectors and cervical
regions of abutment teeth, especially
at the pier abutment. Root surfaces
and apical aspects were other stress
concentration areas. However, with
the use of a nonrigid connector, stress
distribution patterns were reduced.
Especially with the use of a nonrigid
connector at the distal region of the
pier abutment, the area of maximum
concentration for the pier abutment
was reduced. With this design type,
there were no stress concentrations at
the anterior abutment with posterior
loading, and vice versa. This may be
an indication of the nonrigid design’s
influence on prevention of the lever
effect with a 5-unit prosthesis.
The results of this study showed
minimum stress values at the non-
rigid connector with terminal loading
conditions, and this result is in accor-
dance with previous studies.4,9 Botel-
ho and Dyson6 evaluated the longevity
of long-span resin-bonded FPDs with
4 or more units with a modified non-
rigid connector and increased exten-
sion of the retainer framework around
the abutment. The authors found
that long-span resin-bonded FPDs
incorporating nonrigid connectors al-
low independent movement between
the retainers, and, combined with
increased framework extension, they
appear successful in the short term.
However, excessive stress concentra-
tions occur at the anterior terminal
abutment due to placement of a non-
rigid connector at the mesial region
of the pier abutment or distal region
of the anterior abutment. Since the
molar tooth has a larger periodon-
tal membrane area than the canine
tooth,5 as reported previously,16 this
may be an advantage for the molar
tooth. Thus, it is less desirable to have
stress on the anterior abutment than
the posterior abutment. The present
study showed that with these non-
rigid connector placements, stress
concentrations were observed at the
canine tooth.
In the present study, the FEM tech-
nique was used. Several assumptions
191
were made for the model used in this
study regarding simulated structures.
The structures in the model were all
assumed to be homogenous, isotro-
pic, and to possess linear elasticity.
The properties of the materials mod-
eled in this study, however, particular-
ly the living tissues, are different. Also,
it is important to note that the stress
distribution patterns may have been
different depending on the materials
and properties assigned to each layer
of the model and the model used in
the experiments. Thus, the inherent
limitations in this study should be
considered.
The value of 50 N was selected
as the occlusal force. Since the same
standard value was simulated in each
model, it is not necessary for this
force to match in vivo conditions ex-
actly. Also, the conditions were com-
pared qualitatively with each other in
the current study. The results pertain
only to the specific loads applied to
the simulated restoration in the an-
terior region, posterior region, and
all teeth. Thus, as with many in vitro
studies, it is difficult to extrapolate
the results of this study directly to the
clinical situation. Further studies may
be performed with additional loading
positions, such as at the middle of the
spans and adjacent to the connec-
tors. Since location of the matrix of a
nonrigid connector on an abutment
tooth and the location of the patrix in
the pontic is the most commonly used
form,4 these locations were simulated
in the current study. Future studies
might evaluate other types of nonrig-
id connector designs for their effects
on stress distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this
study, the following conclusions were
drawn:
1. The stress distributions and val-
ues of an FPD and a pier abutment
are affected by the presence and loca-
tion of a nonrigid connector.
2. The area of minimum stress
concentration occurs in pier abut-
192
ments when a nonrigid connector is
located at the distal region of the pier
abutment for a 5-unit FPD (mandibu-
lar canine, second premolar, and sec-
ond molar as abutments) with a pier
abutment.
REFERENCES
1. Ziada HM, Barrett BE. Case report: a non-
rigid connector for a resin bonded bridge.
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000;8:67-
9.
2. Shillingburg HT Jr, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Ja-
cobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed
prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintes-
sence; 1997. p. 85-118.
3. Ziada HM, Orr JF, Benington IC. Photo-
elastic stress analysis in a pier retainer of an
anterior resin-bonded fixed partial denture.
J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:661-5.
4. Shillingburg HT Jr, Fisher DW. Nonrigid
connectors for fixed partial dentures. J Am
Dent Assoc 1973;87:1195-9.
5. Caputo AA, Standlee JP. Biomechanics in
clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence;
1987. p. 126-37.
6. Botelho MG, Dyson JE. Long-span,
fixed-movable, resin-bonded fixed partial
dentures: a retrospective, preliminary
clinical investigation. Int J Prosthodont
2005;18:371-6.
7. Dunne SM, Millar BJ. A longitudinal
study of the clinical performance of resin
bonded bridges and splints. Br Dent J
1993;174:405-11.
8. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Sarver DM. Con-
temporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis:
Mosby; 2006. p. 295-362.
9. Sutherland JK, Holland GA, Sluder TB,
White JT. A photoelastic analysis of the
stress distribution in bone supporting
fixed partial dentures of rigid and nonrigid
design. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:616-23.
10.Lin CL, Wang JC, Kuo YC. Numerical simu-
lation on the biomechanical interactions
of tooth/implant-supported system under
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
various occlusal forces with rigid/non-rigid
connections. J Biomech 2006;39:453-63.
11.Sheets CG, Earthman JC. Tooth intrusion
in implant-assisted prostheses. J Prosthet
Dent 1997;77:39-45.
12.Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load
factor control for implants in the posterior
partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:360-70.
13.Nishimura RD, Ochiai KT, Caputo AA,
Jeong CM. Photoelastic stress analysis of
load transfer to implants and natural teeth
comparing rigid and semirigid connectors. J
Prosthet Dent 1999;81:696-703.
14.Becker CM, Kaiser DA, Jones JD. Guide-
lines for splinting implants. J Prosthet Dent
2000;84:210-4.
15.el-Ebrashi MK, Craig RG, Peyton FA.
Experimental stress analysis of dental res-
torations. VII. Structural design and stress
analysis of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet
Dent 1970;23:177-86.
16.Moulding MB, Holland GA, Sulik WD.
Photoelastic stress analysis of supporting
alveolar bone as modified by nonrigid con-
nectors. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:263-74.
17.Eraslan O, Sevimay M, Usumez A, and
Eskitascioglu G. Effects of cantilever design
and material on stress distribution in fixed
partial dentures–a finite element analysis. J
Oral Rehabil 2005;32:273-8.
18.Lanza A, Aversa R, Rengo S, Apicella D,
Apicella A. 3D FEA of cemented steel, glass
and carbon posts in a maxillary incisor.
Dent Mater 2005;21:709-15.
19.Ismail YH, Pahountis LN, Fleming JF. Com-
parison of two-dimensional and three-di-
mensional finite element analysis of a blade
implant. Int J Oral Implantol 1987;4:25-61.
20.Darbar UR, Huggett R, Harrison A. Stress
analysis technique in complete dentures. J
Dent 1994;22:259-64.
21.Ko CC, Chu CS, Chung KH, Lee MC.
Effect of posts on dentin stress distribu-
tion in pulpless teeth. J Prosthet Dent
1992;67:421-7.
22.Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why
do shear bond tests pull out dentin? J Dent
Res 1997;6:1298-307.
23.Chen J, Xu L. A finite element analysis of
Volume 99 Issue 3
the human temporomandibular joint. J
Biomech Eng 1994;116:401-7.
24.Savion I, Saucier CL, Rues S, Sadan A, Blatz
M. The pier abutment: a review of literature
and suggested mathematical model. Quin-
tessence Int 2006;37:345-52.
25.Ash MM. Wheeler’s atlas of tooth form.
5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sci-
ences; 1984. p. 68.
26.Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa
O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design
and bone quality on stress/strain distribu-
tion in bone around implants: a 3- dimen-
sional finite element analysis. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357-68.
27.Beer FP, DeWolf JT, Johnston ER. Me-
chanics of materials. 4th ed. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill Int; 2005. p. 360-78.
28.Ugural AC, Fenster SK. Advanced strength
and applied elasticity. 4th ed. New York:
Prentice-Hall; 2003. p. 155-7.
29.Akca K, Iplikcioglu H. Finite element stress
analysis of the influence of staggered versus
straight placement of dental implants. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:722-30.
30.Yang HS, Lang LA, Molina A, Felton DA.
The effects of dowel design and load direc-
tion on dowel-and-core restorations. J Pros-
thet Dent 2001;85:558-67.
31.Timoshenko S, Young DH. Elements of
strength of materials. 5th ed. Florence:
Wadsworth; 1968. p. 377.
32.Pegoretti A, Fambri L, Zappini G, Bianch-
etti M. Finite element analysis of a glass
fibre reinforced composite endodontic
post. Biomaterials 2002;23:2667-82.
Corresponding author:
Dr Oguz Eraslan
University of Selcuk, Faculty of Dentistry
Department of Prosthodontics
42079 Kampus
Konya
TURKEY
Fax: 90 332 2410062
E-mail: oguzeraslan@selcuk.edu.tr
Copyright © 2008 by the Editorial Council for
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Oruc et al