A Comparative 3D Finite Element Computational Study of Three Connections

Abstract

Masticatory overload on dental implants is one of the causes of marginal bone resorption. The implant–abutment connection (IAC) design plays a critical role in the quality of the stress distribution, and, over the years, different designs were proposed. This study aimed to assess the mechanical behavior of three different types of IAC using a finite element model (FEM) analysis. Three types of two-piece implants were designed: two internal conical connection designs (models A and B) and one internal flat-to-flat connection design (model C). This three-dimensional analysis evaluated the response to static forces on the three models. The strain map, stress analysis, and safety factor were assessed by means of the FEM examination. The FEM analysis indicated that forces are transmitted on the abutment and implant’s neck in model B. In models A and C, forces were distributed along the internal screw, abutment areas, and implant’s neck. The stress distribution in model B showed a more homogeneous pattern, such that the peak forces were reduced. The conical shape of the head of the internal screw in model B seems to have a keystone role in transferring the forces at the surrounding structures. Further experiments should be carried out in order to confirm the present suppositions.

Effect of Different Customized Abutment Types on Stress Distribution in Implant‐Supported Single Crown: A 3D Finite Element Analysis

“…In general, different abutment types have no effect on stress distribution at the supporting bone, both in cortical and cancellous, which is in agreement with several studies that found no significant differences of stress distribution in supporting bone between the different abutment materials, abutment configurations, and restorative crown materials 10,34–37 …”

“…18,32,33 In general, different abutment types have no effect on stress distribution at the supporting bone, both in cortical and cancellous, which is in agreement with several studies that found no significant differences of stress distribution in supporting bone between the different abutment materials, abutment configurations, and restorative crown materials. 10,[34][35][36][37] By comparing the Ti and Zir-TiBase groups, the Ti-base in the Zir-TiBase played an important role in getting better stress distribution at implant than Ti, especially at the implant shoulder region. Titanium has an elastic modulus approximately two times lower than zirconia.…”

Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Overload: A Systematic Review Focusing on Occlusal Analysis through Digital and Analogic Methods

“…In this context, finite element analysis (FEA) may also contribute to a better definition of the influence of loading variation. For instance, FEA has been applied to investigate the influence on stress of the prosthetic designs associated with implants of varying lengths and distribution [ 104 ], of the prosthetic screw design [ 105 ], or of the distribution of occlusal contacts [ 106 ]. Another area that should be investigated concerns the extent to which the resolution of occlusal overload could be effective in limiting the progression of prosthetically triggered peri-implant bone loss.…”

Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation

“…Nowadays it is known how superstructure misfit may result in strain and distortion of its parts, with several complications in both biological and mechanical aspects of the rehabilitation. Concerning the mechanical ones, the most commonly reported are screw loosening, fracture of the prosthetic or implant components [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and prosthetic mainframe damage [12][13][14][15]. Among the biological complications, instead, loss of osseointegration [16] should be considered.…”