Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an
M Sevimay1, F Turhan, M A Kiliçarslan
1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Selcuk, Konya, Turkey. msevimay@hotmail.com
Statement Of Problem:
Primary implant stability and bone density are variables that are considered essential to achieve predictable osseointegration and long-term clinical survival of implants. Information about the influence of bone quality on stress distribution in an implant-supported crown is limited.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of 4 different bone qualities on stress distribution in an implant-supported mandibular crown, using 3-dimensional (3-D) finite element (FE) analysis.
Material And Methods:
A 3-D FE model of a mandibular section of bone with a missing second premolar tooth was developed, and an implant to receive a crown was developed. A solid 4.1 x 10-mm screw-type dental implant system (ITI; solid implant) and a metal-ceramic crown using Co-Cr (Wiron 99) and feldspathic porcelain were modeled. The model was developed with FE software (Pro/Engineer 2000i program), and 4 types of bone quality (D1, D2, D3, and D4) were prepared. A load of 300 N was applied in a vertical direction to the buccal cusp and distal fossa of the crowns. Optimal bone quality for an implant-supported crown was evaluated.
Results:
The results demonstrated that von Mises stresses in D3 and D4 bone quality were 163 MPa and 180 MPa, respectively, and reached the highest values at the neck of the implant. The von Mises stress values in D1 and D2 bone quality were 150 MPa and 152 MPa, respectively, at the neck of the implant. A more homogenous stress distribution was seen in the entire bone. Conclusion For the bone qualities investigated, stress concentrations in compact bone followed the same distributions as in the D3 bone model, but because the trabecular bone was weaker and less resistant to deformation than the other bone qualities modeled, the stress magnitudes were greatest for D3 and D4 bone.
