Methods: 3 Straumann implants with 4,1mm in diameter, 12mm in lenght, solid, screw type and newly extracted caries free right upper second premolar tooth was used. Natural tooth was prepared in shoulder margin design with the angle of º6 at the top. The root surface was coated with silicone impression material 0,20-0,30 mm in thickness.
Implants and natural tooth were placed in acrylic blocks 45mmx10mmx50mm and abutments with 5,5mm in height were fixed on implants. ‘T' type precise attachment was used at connector areas in metal ceramic FPD's. In photoelastic stress analysis method PL-2 epoxy resin was used. In order to see stress areas, white light and polariscope and for loading universal test device was used. The 300N was applied vertically in the centre of occlusal table for each sample and results were screened with digital camera.
For FEM models, enamel, dentine, pulp, periodontal ligament, bone, implant were created as actual sizes regarding elasticity modulus and poisson rates and SAP2000 software was used. Models were sectioned by two milimeters. All structures were assumed as homogen, linear elastic and isotropic. The samples were loaded and results were evaluated with von Misses scale.
Results: The results of two different methods were evaluated comperatively and seperately. The results of, FE and photoelastic stress analysis were parallel and the lowest stress values were located in implant-implant supported models, the highest stress values were located in tooth-implant supported, semirigid attachments.
Conclusions: Rigid connected tooth-implant supported models showed similar results when compared to implant-implant supported models. When implant-implant supported FPD's could not be used, tooth-implant supported FPD's with rigid attachment could be an alternative.