How Do Differences of Dental Implants’ Internal Connection Systems Affect Stress Distribution? A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

Open access


Background/Aim: A factor affecting the success rate of dental implants, which has been used successfully for many years, is the implant-abutment connection system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution of different implant-abutment connection systems under different forces.

Material and Methods: This in vitro study included a finite element analysis. In the study, the cylindrical and screwed dental implants available in 3 different diameters from 4 different companies were categorized into 12 different models. Two different scenarios of force application were conducted on each model in this study. In the first scenario, 100 N force and 100 N moment were applied in a vertical direction onto a point considered as the center of each tooth. In the second scenario, a 100 N force and moment were applied at a 45° angle in an oblique direction.

Results: As a result of the forces applied to dental implants of different diameters from different companies, octagon implant-abutment connection systems had less stress accumulation than hexagon implant-abutment connection systems. In addition, when stress accumulation ratios were evaluated according to the diameter of the implants used, it was observed that 3 mm diameter implants accumulated more stress in bone than 4 mm diameter implants; there was no significant difference between 4 mm diameter implants and 5 mm diameter implants.

Conclusions: Implant-abutment connection system is important for the longevity of implants under the forces. Therefore, this factor should be considered during implant selection.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Adell R Eriksson B Lekholm U Branemark PI Jemt T. Long-term follow up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-359.

  • 2. Kwon JH Han CH Kim SJ Chang JS. The change of rotational freedom following different insertion torques in three implant systems with implant driver. J Adv Prosthodont 2009;1:37-40.

  • 3. Finger IM Castellon P Block M Elian N. The evolution of external and internal implant/abutment connections. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2003;15:625-632.

  • 4. Marcián P Wolff J Horáčková L Kaiser J Zikmund T Borák L. Micro finite element analysis of dental implants under different loading conditions. Comput Biol Med 2018;96:157-165.

  • 5. Matsushita Y Kitoh M Mizuta K Ikeda H Suetsugu T. Two-dimensional FEM analysis of hydroxyapatite implants: diameter effects on stress distribution. J Oral Implantol 1990;16:6-11.

  • 6. Peyton FA Craig RG. Current evaluation of plastics in crown and bridge prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1963;13:743-753.

  • 7. Branemark PI Breine U Adell R Hansson BO Lindström J Olsson A. Intraosseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Recons Surg 1969;3:81-100.

  • 8. Branemark PI Hansson BO Adell R Breine U Lindström J Hallen O Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977;16:1-132.

  • 9. Branemark PI Zarb GA Albrektson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence 1985;54:611-612.

  • 10. Zarb GA Albrektson T. Osseointegration: A requiem for the periodontal ligament. Int J Periodontal Rest Dent 1991;11:88-91.

  • 11. Akça K Çehreli MC İplikçioğlu H. A comparison of three-dimensional finite element stress analysis with in vitro strain gauge measurements on dental implants. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:115-121.

  • 12. Akça K İplikçioğlu H. Finite element stress analysis of the influence of staggered versus straight placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:722-730.

  • 13. O’Mahony AM Williams JL Katz JQ Spencer P. Anisotropic elastic properties of cancellous bone from a human edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implant Res 2000;11:415-421.

  • 14. Bidez WM Misch CE. Issues in bone mechanics related to oral implants. Implant Dent 1992;1:289-294.

  • 15. Van Zyl PP Grundling NL Jooste CH Terblanche E. Three dimensional finite element model of a human mandible incorporating six osseointegrated implants for stress analysis of mandibular cantilever prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:51-57.

  • 16. Perriard J Wiskott WA Mellal A Scherrer SS Botsis J Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors. A comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:542-549.

  • 17. Balik A Karatas MO Keskin H. Effects of different abutment connection designs on the stress distribution around five different implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:491-496.

  • 18. Raoofi S Khademi M Amid R Kadkhodazadeh M Movahhedi MR. Comparison of the effect of three abutment-implant connections on stress distribution at the internal surface of dental implants: a finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2013;7:132-139.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 109 109 30
PDF Downloads 124 124 36