Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 21, 2026

Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
The role of prosthetic abutment material on the stress distribution in a maxillary single implant-supported fixed
Hugo Eduardo Peixoto1, Dimorvan Bordin2, Altair A Del Bel Cury2
1Implantology Team, Latin American Institute of Research and Education in Dentistry, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Purpose:
Evaluate the influence of abutment's material and geometry on stress distribution in a single implant-supported prosthesis.
Materials And Methods:
Three-dimensional models were made based on tomographic slices of the upper middle incisor area, in which a morse taper implant was positioned and a titanium (Ti) or zirconia (ZrN) universal abutments was installed. The commercially available geometry of titanium (T) and zirconia (Z) abutments were used to draw two models, TM1 and ZM1 respectively, which served as control groups. These models were compared with 2 experimental groups were the mechanical properties of Z were applied to the titanium abutment (TM2) and vice versa for the zirconia abutment (ZM2). Subsequently, loading was simulated in two steps, starting with a preload phase, calculated with the respective friction coefficients of each materials, followed by a combined preload and chewing force. The maximum von Mises stress was described. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA that considered material composition, geometry and loading (p<0.05).
Results:
Titanium and zirconia abutments showed similar von Mises stresses in the mechanical part of the four models. The area with the highest concentration of stress was the screw thread, following by the screw body. The highest stress levels occurred in screw thread was observed during the preloading phase in the ZM1 model (931MPa); and during the combined loading in the TM1 model (965MPa). Statistically significant differences were observed for loading, the material×loading interaction, and the loading×geometry interaction (p<0.05). Preloading contributed for 77.89% of the stress (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences to the other factors (p>0.05).
Conclusion:
The screw was the piece most intensely affected, mainly through the preload force, independent of the abutment's material.
More Related Videos
07:09In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
Published on: March 7, 2014
05:54Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Stress Concentrations
Stresses under Combined Loadings
The process begins by slicing the tube at critical points and analyzing the internal forces and stress components at these sections, focusing on the centroid. Normal stresses, generated by axial forces and bending moments, are either compressive or tensile and vary across the section from...
Stress: General Loading Conditions
The shearing force, possessing potential directionality within the plane of the section, is simplified into two component forces running parallel to the x and y axes....
Principal Stresses in a Beam
Analyzing principal stresses is crucial, especially in...
Principal Stresses: Problem Solving