Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 2, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Biomechanical evaluation of implant-supported prosthesis with various tilting implant angles and bone types in
Zeynep Gümrükçü1, Yavuz Tolga Korkmaz1, Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz2
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Trabzon, Turkey.
Background And Objective:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare bone stress that occurs as a result of using vertical implants with simultaneous sinus augmentation with bone stress generated from oblique implants without sinus augmentation in atrophic maxilla.
Methods:
Six, three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) models of atrophic maxilla were generated with SolidWorks software. The maxilla models were varied for two different bone types. Models 2a, 2b and 2c represent maxilla models with D2 bone type. Models 3a, 3b and 3c represent maxilla models with D3 bone type. Five implants were embedded in each model with different configurations for vertical implant insertion with sinus augmentation: Model 2a/Model 3a, 30° tilted insertion; Model 2b/Model 3b and 45° tilted insertion; Model 2c/Model 3c. A 150 N load was applied obliquely on the hybrid prosthesis. The maximum von Mises stress values were comparatively evaluated using color scales.
Results:
The von Mises stress values predicted by the FE models were higher for all D3 bone models in both cortical and cancellous bone. For the vertical implant models, lower stress values were found in cortical bone. Tilting of the distal implants by 30° increased the stress in the cortical layer compared to vertical implant models. Tilting of the distal implant by 45° decreased the stress in the cortical bone compared to the 30° models, but higher stress values were detected in the 45° models compared to the vertical implant models.
Conclusions:
Augmentation should be the first treatment option in atrophic maxilla in terms of biomechanics. Tilted posterior implants can create higher stress values than vertical posterior implants. During tilting implant planning, the use of a 45° tilted implant results in better biomechanical performance in peri-implant bone than 30° tilted implant due to the decrease in cantilever length.
